RiTides wrote:


Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.

If it's WYSIWYG and made from majority GW kits I don't understand the restriction. That just makes FW seem more elitist to me. I'm just devils advocate here, I doubt I would ever cough up the cash for FW stuff other than the books. If the interest was truly to have fun and variety of armies then why not counts as? Does it offend the people that paid a premium for their models?

 BladeWalker wrote:
So what about using your own converted models as counts-as FW units? Sure you can use FW models to count as some codex entries in events that don't allow FW but can I convert up my own models and use them in events that do? Just curious if it goes both ways in peoples minds...

IMO, you should be able to.

The problem with counts-as FW units is that far too often it's used as an excuse to "scratchbuild" an ugly proxy so you can save money, not to create an awesome conversion that best matches how you want the unit to look. So I think that's the reason why some people ban counts-as FW units, it's easier to just issue a blanket ban than to decide case-by-case whether it's a legitimate counts-as model or just a money-saving proxy.

(And yes, in theory the same issue exists with codex stuff, but the high price of FW models tends to create more proxying.)

MVBrandt wrote:
Nevertheless, events that forbid the use of some or many codices actually happen quite routinely. What was your point?

My point is that allowing or not allowing FW is no different than allowing or not allowing the Tyranid codex. You have every right to do it since it's your event, but you shouldn't.

And I would agree in theory with your point about variety, except that "variety" right now really means "if you don't live in an area where FW is popular you never get to use your FW stuff". I'm glad that some people get to, but if those events are too far away for me to afford the travel costs the "variety" doesn't exactly help me. How it should really work, IMO:

Most events should follow the standard 40k rules for army construction (everything published by GW and intended for standard 40k, whether it's printed in a codex, FW book, WD, etc) and use mission types fairly similar to the standard book ones (IOW, no "punish flyerspam" type mission). If you have a legal 40k army you should be able to show up and play without having to modify your list to account for house rules, though obviously you shouldn't expect to win if you haven't prepared a competitive army list.

A minority of events should do weird things like codex-only, or fluff-specific events like a Heresy-era tournament. For example, your side event idea is exactly how it should be done, it's available if it's something you're interested in but there is still a "normal" event to play in if you're not. Of course not everyone can run multiple simultaneous events, but as long as weird events are treated as a special thing then nobody should feel like they've been excluded from tournament gaming in general.

The problem is that right now the proportion of events is completely reversed, most events have house rules that limit the accessibility of tournament gaming, while standard events are few and far between for many people.

Quoting this onto this page since you didn't address it Peregrine.

As to your above comment- a TO not allowing the tyranid codec isn't the same as not allowing FW, for all the reasons MVBrandt very clearly tried to explain to you. You are pounding this point, but most folks disagree with you. Certainly, the language you are using about the clause being there for whiners is Not helping you appear any more reasonable.

 RiTides wrote:

muwhe wrote:

I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.

Agreed!!

Peregrine, you realize that in taking issue with the above, written by MVBrandt and agreed to by muwhe, you're disagreeing with 2 TOs of some of the biggest US GTs, Nova and Adepticon, right?

You have every right to do that, but these guys know what the heck they're talking about!

 RiTides wrote:
As to your above comment- a TO not allowing the tyranid codec isn't the same as not allowing FW, for all the reasons MVBrandt very clearly tried to explain to you. You are pounding this point, but most folks disagree with you. Certainly, the language you are using about the clause being there for whiners is Not helping you appear any more reasonable.

And the people who actually write the rules for 40k disagree with you. Both the Tyranid codex and FW units are 100% legal and intended for use in standard 40k, and excluding either of them is nothing more than a house rule. Whether or not it's a popular house rule doesn't change this fact.

 RiTides wrote:
Peregrine, you realize that in taking issue with the above, written by MVBrandt and agreed to by muwhe, you're disagreeing with 2 TOs of some of the biggest US GTs, Nova and Adepticon, right?

You have every right to do that, but these guys know what the heck they're talking about!

Yes, I know who they are, and it doesn't change my disagreement one bit.

Our status as TO's doesn't make us genius arguers, or game designers. That said, intentionally ignoring the points I was trying to make actively makes you not a genius arguer. I'm happy to engage further if you want to address the differences that were delineated.

My primary point remains as this: TO's aren't right OR wrong in how they design their events, especially with regard to how they address the FW 40k stamp requiring you make sure your opponents are happy/familiar with using FW rules.

In light of that unique language being blatantly used in ONLY the rules for FW units, and not for any other units, it puts the onus on TO's to have to choose one way or another ... but does not make them right or wrong for doing so.

In regard to your Tyranid codex inclusive reply, again ... you're simply ignoring the points made and restating your own, which has the effect of rendering your arguments irrelevant.

MVBrandt wrote:
My primary point remains as this: TO's aren't right OR wrong in how they design their events, especially with regard to how they address the FW 40k stamp requiring you make sure your opponents are happy/familiar with using FW rules.

And I've already agreed with this: TOs aren't "right" or "wrong" in how they design individual events. What I object to is the overall trend where the default is different from the actual rules of the game and excludes legal armies and the players who own them. I would be content if most events allowed all legal armies according to the standard rules of 40k and a few special events had different rules. That's what genuine variety looks like, not the current situation where the only way to use your legal army is to spend a lot of money on traveling to distant events.

In light of that unique language being blatantly used in ONLY the rules for FW units, and not for any other units, it puts the onus on TO's to have to choose one way or another ... but does not make them right or wrong for doing so.

And my point is the most likely reason for this "unique language" isn't that GW is setting two separate policies, it's the historical fact that many people dislike FW rules and don't want to allow them, while the same kind of dislike for codex units isn't nearly as common. Even though they're wrong and unjustified in that dislike they still exist, so FW adds the disclaimer to say "be polite and make sure you aren't setting up a game with someone who hates FW before you show up with FW units".

In fact, you'll note that the statement says that you SHOULD make sure they're happy, not that you MUST make sure that they're happy. It's an optional thing that you should probably do if you want to avoid arguments, not a mandatory requirement for using the rules.

I just want a 'battle brother' for my allied force and Ork Dredbash the FW codex is the only 'battle bro' orks get. I just hate the current 6th edition allied matrix (and Eldrad) soooooo much!

 RiTides wrote:

muwhe wrote:

I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.

Agreed!!

Peregrine, you realize that in taking issue with the above, written by MVBrandt and agreed to by muwhe, you're disagreeing with 2 TOs of some of the biggest US GTs, Nova and Adepticon, right?

You have every right to do that, but these guys know what the heck they're talking about!

And a Horus Heresy evening event at Nova sounds just plain awesome

Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.

Our "Counts As" rule could be misinterpreted. We would not deny a player from scratch building their own stuff following our modeling guidelines - instead it is used to keep shenanigans to a minimum. For example, a couple years ago a player checked in to see if he could use regular drop pods to represent the Lucius Pattern ones because he thought he would have a killer army. Our event is more focused on the models - it is a miniatures game after all. That would go against our definition of "Counts As". On the other hand, this year we have a player who has scratch built many of his own vehicles for IG to have a Soviet theme - and this is completely legal for us as it would instead be a "Conversion". If any of you have ever seen Tinners work you would never deny playing against his fantastic scratch built vehicles.

As for arguing a single sentence in a book about permission to use FW as the basis for exclusion from tournaments - IT DOES NOT SAY PERMISSION - IT SAYS HAPPY.

While we are talking about silly sentences, how about these two?

"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army list or use their own system if they wish"

Use their own system... Yes, there in the rulebook is says you can make your own rules. Would it be tournament legal? Usually not, but there will be exceptions. Take the fan made Chaos Dwarf list for WHFB - it was widely accepted by many TO's for their events.

I would say the CD list example is bad, considering that FW has its own CD book now(that just about all fantesy tournaments I've seen seem to allow)

MechBoyz wrote:
For example, a couple years ago a player checked in to see if he could use regular drop pods to represent the Lucius Pattern ones because he thought he would have a killer army.

I should point out that this would actually be illegal, since the Lucius-pattern pods are larger than the standard ones and this can have a major effect on gameplay.

(Which just proves my point about lazy proxies and why they should be excluded.)

 Peregrine wrote:

MechBoyz wrote:
For example, a couple years ago a player checked in to see if he could use regular drop pods to represent the Lucius Pattern ones because he thought he would have a killer army.

I should point out that this would actually be illegal, since the Lucius-pattern pods are larger than the standard ones and this can have a major effect on gameplay.

(Which just proves my point about lazy proxies and why they should be excluded.)

While that would be true for the rules of our event - some events might actually allow that.

I think that many of us have agreed that each event may be different, we shared opinions on points, debated whether our opponents points are valid and either looked at another point of view or ignored our opponents valid points. All in all, I think this was a good thread and enjoyed joining it. Thanks everyone!

For me it just highlights that there is no one way to play this game. People enjoy this hobby and events for different reasons. Which is a good thing.

muwhe wrote:
For me it just highlights that there is no one way to play this game. People enjoy this hobby and events for different reasons. Which is a good thing.

the question comes up is what will adepticon do with forge world this year?
limited in the team?
allowed in the championship?

Skkipper,

Strictly speaking Forgeworld wise,

I suspect that the 40K TT rules will be very similar to last year if not the same. Personally, I am pretty happy with last years compromise as it allows people to bring and play with FW models without the extreme issues associated when a team spams multiple instances. The 40K TT by design already has a limited force organization chart so it fits in well as currently designed.

The question is whether those allowances carry over to the Championship format for 2013 and what other 40K event formats exist on the schedule.

Decisions are ultimately up to our 40K Team Tourney and 40K Championship staff and we still got a bit of time.

I know everyone says FW units are overpriced, but back in 5th edition Contemptor Dreadnoughts were ferocious yes it was nearly 200 pts, but it was Fleet, and did have some nifty special rules and could sport a "Kheres Pattern Assault Cannon".

The one with a Twin DCCW and a Missile Launcher combined with Fleet was especially nasty.

In 6th the change of Fleet makes it a bit more meh...

Eh, they were good, better than some codex alternatives, but certainly not overpowered, certainly a 200pt dread with an extra attack and a missile launcher was nothing like a 140pt 5 ML long fang squad or a 130pt triple TL-lascannon vendetta or the like.

Well, it wasn't just an extra attack. It has AV13 and an Invulnerable save too. But 200 points is more then fair for that.

Compare to a Furioso Dreadnought. The Furioso has AV13 on the sides as well as the rear and has the option for 2 DCCWs or 2 Blood Talons. its far cheaper then the 200 point Contemptor.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, it wasn't just an extra attack. It has AV13 and an Invulnerable save too. But 200 points is more then fair for that.

Compare to a Furioso Dreadnought. The Furioso has AV13 on the sides as well as the rear and has the option for 2 DCCWs or 2 Blood Talons. its far cheaper then the 200 point Contemptor.

Even then, close combat dreads were generally a waste of points, I can't think of any that were commonly used in armies that commonly saw top tables. Close combat contemptors, while cool, were terrible for their cost in fifth. You could as easily get 5 th/ss termies with 10 str 8 attacks and five 2+/3++ wounds. Given that sixth is even worse for assault, and you can't punch a flyer out of the sky the discussion seems academic. I've yet to see anything FW has released compare to the Vendetta, Palladin, Rune Priest, Vet squad, psyfledread, or any of the other spammed tourney winning units. If anything forge world is very conservative with it's rules and rulings while the games codex writers might as well be pulling point costs out of a hat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BladeWalker wrote:

 RiTides wrote:


Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.

If it's WYSIWYG and made from majority GW kits I don't understand the restriction. That just makes FW seem more elitist to me. I'm just devils advocate here, I doubt I would ever cough up the cash for FW stuff other than the books. If the interest was truly to have fun and variety of armies then why not counts as? Does it offend the people that paid a premium for their models?

What makes this argument even sillier is the lack of WYSYG enforcement in allies, something that is altogether more confusing and an order of magnitude more common.

Note that that's not my Wysiwyg argument- just what I've observed and also read in event guidelines... not necessarily my take.

My take as an orginizer and player is that its ok to scratch build/convert to make forgeworld stuff but dont try to just use stock stuff. You have to make it WYSWIG and put some effort into rule of cool.

I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).

That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.

Makes sense to me

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).

That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.

Agreed. The allies system has forced our local RTs to tighten up the counts as policy.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).

That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.

Agreed. The allies system has forced our local RTs to tighten up the counts as policy.

They're gonna sell a lot more space wolves if every marine codex can't pretend to be them anymore!

Allowing conversions for FW starts off as must having to look cool but it opens the door for cardboard cutouts eventually in my opinion and there are people who will gladly do so. I'll never forget a local tournament where the TO's brother brought a stuffed bunny rabbit to proxy a Tyranid Hierodule. It was absurd.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Allowing conversions for FW starts off as must having to look cool but it opens the door for cardboard cutouts eventually in my opinion and there are people who will gladly do so. I'll never forget a local tournament where the TO's brother brought a stuffed bunny rabbit to proxy a Tyranid Hierodule. It was absurd.

The key word is "cool"

Cardboard cutouts and stuffed bunnys are not cool.

Yes I agree but allowing non FW models is the first step down the wrong road in my opinion... Once that becomes excepted then people will demand the standards be lowered... "I have a very busy work schedule and don't have the spare time." blah blah blah.

It only open the door if the players let it. As a player you should not allow the standards to drop. You don't have to play someone who would do this and you don't have to go to an event that would allow the low standards.

vhwolf wrote:
It only open the door if the players let it. As a player you should not allow the standards to drop. You don't have to play someone who would do this and you don't have to go to an event that would allow the low standards.

I fail to see the difference between counts as forge world models and converted or fully custom 40k models from places like microartstudio. It seems to me like there are double standards going on.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I fail to see the difference between counts as forge world models and converted or fully custom 40k models from places like microartstudio. It seems to me like there are double standards going on.

I think the "double standard" is just the fact that when most people ask about using converted/counts-as FW models what they're really saying is "FW is too expensive, can I bring this cheap proxy instead?", not "can I use the FW rules for my awesome scratchbuilt model that looks better than anything GW makes". I suspect "rule of cool" takes priority and most of the people banning counts-as FW stuff would allow a legitimate scratchbuilt/converted model if you asked for a special exception to the rule.

First it was the premise that FW units shouid be allowed at big events, now some people want to use proxies and conversions. What's next?

 Peregrine wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I fail to see the difference between counts as forge world models and converted or fully custom 40k models from places like microartstudio. It seems to me like there are double standards going on.

I think the "double standard" is just the fact that when most people ask about using converted/counts-as FW models what they're really saying is "FW is too expensive, can I bring this cheap proxy instead?", not "can I use the FW rules for my awesome scratchbuilt model that looks better than anything GW makes". I suspect "rule of cool" takes priority and most of the people banning counts-as FW stuff would allow a legitimate scratchbuilt/converted model if you asked for a special exception to the rule.

I'm going to rephrase that one for you.

I think the "double standard" is just the fact that when most people ask about using converted/counts-as allies models what they're really saying is "GW is too expensive, can I bring this model I already own instead?", not "can I use the allies rules for my awesome heresy era imperial army that looks better than anything GW makes". I suspect "rule of cool" takes priority and most of the people banning counts-as allies stuff would allow a legitimate scratchbuilt/converted model if you asked for a special exception to the rule.

You can try to legitimize it, but this is still a double standard. What you are trying to do is force decorum through banning. Most major tournaments with soft scores already do this anyway with different types of comp scoring. If you're not going to enforce wysywig with codex hopping marine forces (which major tournies don't seem to do very stringently) than I fail to see how this is any worse for the hobby. There are legitimate concerns with forge world entries in major tournies (mostly due to rules conflicts and the lack of FAQs or community vetting), but the idea that allowing it will just bring in a parade of bad counts as models ignores the fact that you already have that, and have for years.

This is why its a good thing that a rule allowing scratch builds and proxies is left in the subjective hands of the TO. Who hopefully has decent rule of cool standards.

If they don't, feel free to no longer go to that tournament.


From my experience, most TOs will enforce an acceptable line in the sand.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm going to rephrase that one for you.

Except I'd agree with your rephrase as well. There's a big counts-as problem with allies when you're talking about marine armies, and if "use the models I already own" means "some of these identical models are SW, some are BA" then no, you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Just like you shouldn't be able to proxy IG troops and a Valkyrie as Necron flyers because Necron flyerspam is awesome and you don't want to have to buy actual Necron flyers.

The only real difference here is that the cheap proxy problem seems to be less frequent with GW stuff so there's less need for a blanket ban to deal with it.

If you're not going to enforce wysywig with codex hopping marine forces (which major tournies don't seem to do very stringently) than I fail to see how this is any worse for the hobby.

At least the marine forces can be called a custom chapter and are WYSIWYG in equipment. After all, GW encourages you to paint your models however you like, so aesthetic things shouldn't interfere with WYSIWYG. The FW proxy problem, on the other hand, seems to consist more of stuff like using regular drop pods as dread pods which is NOT WYSIWYG and, in fact, is a case of modeling for advantage by using a smaller model which is less likely to mishap on arrival.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
First it was the premise that FW units shouid be allowed at big events, now some people want to use proxies and conversions. What's next?

No one's said anything about proxies, the only thing people have been pointing out is that there's a double standard pertaining conversions of "normal" units and FW units.

Just to broaden this abit, some Companies are following GW. Battlefront's Flames of War tournaments are now BF only models, I think this is because of the amount of 15mm WWII stuff out there. I think it's even harder to enforce, than say something where you own all the IP.

The FW stuff is just another Arm of GW, it's in the Same factory and use the same IP. It's a symbiotic relationship, FW pay nice licenses to GW and GW stuff White Dwarf with FW stuff.

The FW in tournaments argument is kind of moot, there are tournaments that do allow it, and tournaments that don't. Simple. I don't see why you need a case against FW at a tournament, it's seems kind of a rebel without of cause argument.

MVBrandt wrote:
I'm going to support rule of cool here. I really don't care in ANY capacity - FW or otherwise - if you aren't using GW stock models or GW parts ... all our events are independent of GW, and they are by dramatic leaps and bounds are smallest sponsors (in fact, it's not even appropriate to call them sponsors anymore).

That said, it's generally not as OK anymore (especially with allies) to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them tactical marines. It's similarly probably not ok to field a bunch of grey hunters w/ ccw and bp and call them heresy era Emperor's Children.

This is the key. FW or not!

Rule of Cool takes precedence.

Easy, easy. Rule of Cool generally requires TO preapproval. You don't get to show up to a tourney with cardboard cutouts, any more than with stock, poorly painted mm/fist dreads counting as contemptors.

Ninja'ed you by 2 seconds

But that's a fantastic point that I forgot about... for both Adepticon and Nova this year, I emailed ahead of time to get approval for my counts-as models. I believe this is a requirement for most major tournaments.

Solves the cardboard box problem, as if they show up with it, it says right in the packet that approval for counts-as models is required ahead of time.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No one's said anything about proxies, the only thing people have been pointing out is that there's a double standard pertaining conversions of "normal" units and FW units.

Except people have said something about proxies. Most of the time when people are asking about using "counts-as" models with FW rules what they're really saying is "FW is too expensive, can I use a minimal-effort proxy and save money?".

 Peregrine wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No one's said anything about proxies, the only thing people have been pointing out is that there's a double standard pertaining conversions of "normal" units and FW units.

Except people have said something about proxies. Most of the time when people are asking about using "counts-as" models with FW rules what they're really saying is "FW is too expensive, can I use a minimal-effort proxy and save money?".

That is what people say with converted or proxied allies as well. Hell, that's what people say with sternguard 100% of the time (have they ever sold any of those?). Why is it unacceptable that my sternguard are from a tac marine box, but that forgeworld siege dread can't be taken from an ironclad box? Why can I make a battlewagon out of a land raider, but not any of the similarly scaled forge world ork machines?

 ShumaGorath wrote:
That is what people say with converted or proxied allies as well. Hell, that's what people say with sternguard 100% of the time (have they ever sold any of those?). Why is it unacceptable that my sternguard are from a tac marine box, but that forgeworld siege dread can't be taken from an ironclad box? Why can I make a battlewagon out of a land raider, but not any of the similarly scaled forge world ork machines?

Because, fair or not, the perception is that the "cheap proxy" problem is more common with FW rules than GW rules. The rare case of someone using cheap proxies instead of legitimate counts-as models for a standard codex unit can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the TO, while cheap proxies for FW units would be common enough that it's easier to just issue a blanket ban and make a special exception if someone comes up with something really cool.

Your sternguard example really isn't a good one. They can be perfectly WYSIWYG in equipment from the tactical squad box since the only difference between sternguard and tactical marines is aesthetic (and even if you argue that the two have to look different on the table it can be done entirely with painting). A "siege dread" made from a minimally-converted ironclad would NOT be WYSIWYG since the weapons would be different. A dread pod made from a minimally converted standard pod would NOT be WYSIWYG because it would be the wrong size.

And, as has been pointed out, some TOs just ban counts-as stuff entirely without special permission, in which case there's no double standard at all.

As long as they have some conversion work done then all of your examples should be ok to use. It's not ok however to plop down a land raider and say it is a battlefortress.

The key is conversions with effort.

Just using a landraider for a battlewagon/battlefortress. Not cool.

using a landraider with tons of orky bits and extra dakka as a battlewagon/battlefortress. Very cool

using a toy vehicle thats been all orkified to be a battlewagon/battlefortress. Very cool too.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
That is what people say with converted or proxied allies as well. Hell, that's what people say with sternguard 100% of the time (have they ever sold any of those?). Why is it unacceptable that my sternguard are from a tac marine box, but that forgeworld siege dread can't be taken from an ironclad box? Why can I make a battlewagon out of a land raider, but not any of the similarly scaled forge world ork machines?

Because, fair or not, the perception is that the "cheap proxy" problem is more common with FW rules than GW rules. The rare case of someone using cheap proxies instead of legitimate counts-as models for a standard codex unit can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the TO, while cheap proxies for FW units would be common enough that it's easier to just issue a blanket ban and make a special exception if someone comes up with something really cool.

Your sternguard example really isn't a good one. They can be perfectly WYSIWYG in equipment from the tactical squad box since the only difference between sternguard and tactical marines is aesthetic (and even if you argue that the two have to look different on the table it can be done entirely with painting). A "siege dread" made from a minimally-converted ironclad would NOT be WYSIWYG since the weapons would be different. A dread pod made from a minimally converted standard pod would NOT be WYSIWYG because it would be the wrong size.

And, as has been pointed out, some TOs just ban counts-as stuff entirely without special permission, in which case there's no double standard at all.

I think the logical part of the converted ironclad would be a weapon conversion, I'm not sure what else they're altering there. As for banning counts-as, that seems over harsh and would drive quite a few people from the tournament space during a time where the games ruleset and general ideology is moving away from ideal tournament play in the first place. What I'm driving at here is that this is a double standard. Not all double standards are bad, exceptions often exist for a reason, but it should be treated plainly and with a minimum of hyperbole. Presuming a future where forge world proxies occur at a high percentage than regular ones without support seems hyperbolic. There are easily identifiable trends that would lead to that occurring now (there is no reason to put money and effort into forge world if the units are commonly banned, thus creating a higher total percentage of "counts as"), but adding legitimacy to forge world in the tournament space would logically have the opposite effect as it would incentivise players to use those resources to ensure compliance within the minimum levels of decorum.

The proxy issue with forge world unit entries isn't nearly as big as the little talked about issues of zero good FAQs and a near total lack of supporting precedent for how forces or army wide rules mesh with one another. A good 150% of forge world rules are specific to new space marine chapters. These are't handled in a fashion that is consistent or commonly updated and a significant number of identifiable loopholes exist.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
As for banning counts-as, that seems over harsh and would drive quite a few people from the tournament space during a time where the games ruleset and general ideology is moving away from ideal tournament play in the first place.

It's not a complete ban, just, as a couple TOs just posted, requiring that all counts-as stuff be approved specifically by the TO. If you have a legitimate counts-as model you're fine. If you have a cheap proxy you're not invited.

Presuming a future where forge world proxies occur at a high percentage than regular ones without support seems hyperbolic. There are easily identifiable trends that would lead to that occurring now (there is no reason to put money and effort into forge world if the units are commonly banned, thus creating a higher total percentage of "counts as"), but adding legitimacy to forge world in the tournament space would logically have the opposite effect as it would incentivise players to use those resources to ensure compliance within the minimum levels of decorum.

So maybe in this hypothetical future a ban on counts-as units wouldn't be required. But right now there's a legitimate perception that most of the people asking to use counts-as FW units are doing it for the sole purpose of bringing a cheap proxy because they don't want to buy the real model. Therefore the reasonable solution is to allow the rules but require the actual model (or specific permission from the TO to use a counts-as model), and leave it that way until the cheap proxy problem becomes no more common than with GW units.

The proxy issue with forge world unit entries isn't nearly as big as the little talked about issues of zero good FAQs and a near total lack of supporting precedent for how forces or army wide rules mesh with one another. A good 150% of forge world rules are specific to new space marine chapters. These are't handled in a fashion that is consistent or commonly updated and a significant number of identifiable loopholes exist.

Have you ever looked at the YMDC forum? You know, the place where they point out all the countless loopholes and broken rules in the core rulebook and every codex? Or, on the subject of FAQs, you do realize we're talking about the GW that left broken 4th edition rules in the Tau codex for years before they finally released an FAQ that did anything about it. If you're able to deal with all of that and still have a properly functioning tournament then adding FW stuff isn't going to change anything.

So maybe in this hypothetical future a ban on counts-as units wouldn't be required. But right now there's a legitimate perception that most of the people asking to use counts-as FW units are doing it for the sole purpose of bringing a cheap proxy because they don't want to buy the real model. Therefore the reasonable solution is to allow the rules but require the actual model (or specific permission from the TO to use a counts-as model), and leave it that way until the cheap proxy problem becomes no more common than with GW units.

That seems reasonable.

Have you ever looked at the YMDC forum? You know, the place where they point out all the countless loopholes and broken rules in the core rulebook and every codex? Or, on the subject of FAQs, you do realize we're talking about the GW that left broken 4th edition rules in the Tau codex for years before they finally released an FAQ that did anything about it. If you're able to deal with all of that and still have a properly functioning tournament then adding FW stuff isn't going to change anything.

Well, anything except doubling the size of the INAT. It won't bring anything new to the table, sure, but it'll greatly increase the strain on the current systems. Rules interaction issues grow on an exponential scale as the numbers of rules that must cross reference grow. Increases aren't linear, and adding forge world (a notoriously lose system for things like force org or common terms) would hugely increase the size of that box.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Well, anything except doubling the size of the INAT. It won't bring anything new to the table, sure, but it'll greatly increase the strain on the current systems. Rules interaction issues grow on an exponential scale as the numbers of rules that must cross reference grow. Increases aren't linear, and adding forge world (a notoriously lose system for things like force org or common terms) would hugely increase the size of that box.

The problem with this argument is that you could also reduce complexity and rule debates by banning troublesome codex units, or even entire codices. It might be taking it to an extreme, but I bet the FAQ list would be a lot shorter if the only legal army was C:SM. So what makes the codex-only level of problems acceptable? It doesn't seem like a desirable state of things, so all I can really see is a personal preference for saying "enough is enough" at that point rather than at some other equally reasonable point.

On the other hand, my position is consistent: all of GW's rules are equally bad at this, so allow everything GW publishes for standard 40k. In the absence of a clear place to draw the line on adding more rule debates, you just leave it at GW's own policy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Well, anything except doubling the size of the INAT. It won't bring anything new to the table, sure, but it'll greatly increase the strain on the current systems. Rules interaction issues grow on an exponential scale as the numbers of rules that must cross reference grow. Increases aren't linear, and adding forge world (a notoriously lose system for things like force org or common terms) would hugely increase the size of that box.

The problem with this argument is that you could also reduce complexity and rule debates by banning troublesome codex units, or even entire codices. It might be taking it to an extreme, but I bet the FAQ list would be a lot shorter if the only legal army was C:SM. So what makes the codex-only level of problems acceptable? It doesn't seem like a desirable state of things, so all I can really see is a personal preference for saying "enough is enough" at that point rather than at some other equally reasonable point.

On the other hand, my position is consistent: all of GW's rules are equally bad at this, so allow everything GW publishes for standard 40k. In the absence of a clear place to draw the line on adding more rule debates, you just leave it at GW's own policy.

The belief that all of GWs rules are equally bad implies a lack of familiarity with forge world books and how entire supplemental armies exist without entry into force organization charts and with unit entries existing outside of unit structures. Not everything is equal here, the presumption that it all is smacks of laziness.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
The belief that all of GWs rules are equally bad implies a lack of familiarity with forge world books and how entire supplemental armies exist without entry into force organization charts and with unit entries existing outside of unit structures. Not everything is equal here, the presumption that it all is smacks of laziness.

Err, what armies/units exist outside of the FOC? The only ones I can think of are the Apocalypse-only units, and that's a deliberate choice to keep them out of normal 40k.

Yeah, every FW unit intended for normal play says exactly what armies can take it and in what FoC slot.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, every FW unit intended for normal play says exactly what armies can take it and in what FoC slot.

Except the chaos contemptor when it released, alongside a half dozen other units from that same book (these were all marked "for 40k"). Unit entries in the badaab books are similarly missing contextual entries at times while the chapter traits presented aren't updated for sixth. There are probably dozens of close combat weapons without rulings for AP as well, alongside many psychic characters and psychic powers without FAQing into sixth. There are vehicles sans hull points, flying units that should or shouldn't be flying, RAW entries that override the primary rulebook and reassert fifth (or fourth) edition rules on how to perform assaults, use templates, activate psychic powers, take leadership tests, etc. Without having the book in front of me I can't really say, but I bet I could find a good two dozen things needing faqs in the tyrants legion army section of the badaab war books alone.

Have you checked out the FW FAQ sheet they released explicitly because of 6th edition?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Have you checked out the FW FAQ sheet they released explicitly because of 6th edition?

I saw portions of it, I was under the impression that it covered the IA apocalypse books and later.

:Edit:

I am now looking at these and they aren't particularly comprehensive.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Except the chaos contemptor when it released, alongside a half dozen other units from that same book (these were all marked "for 40k").

Ok, but those were a pretty obvious case of typos, not a deliberate decision to have units that exist outside the FOC. And what else was there besides the Contemptor?

Unit entries in the badaab books are similarly missing contextual entries at times

Which units would those be? IIRC the only units that got rules in those books were the HQ characters (all marked as HQ options for a marine army) and units that were part of the special army lists at the end (all given in the appropriate FOC slot of the army list).

while the chapter traits presented aren't updated for sixth.

What update do you need? I just looked at all the chapter tactics rules in both books and all of them work just fine. Some of the USRs might do different things, but that's not a rule conflict.

(Ok, technically there was one that gave Infiltrators and not Infiltrate, but if you're going to nitpick that difference then 40k is not the game for you.)

There are probably dozens of close combat weapons without rulings for AP

What rulings do you need? There's a default case for close combat weapons (STR: user, AP -). If it's a power weapon it follows the rules for unusual power weapons (STR: user, AP 3). There might be some cases were you might want a different AP value (just like we can argue all day that GW made the wrong call on various codex power weapons being axe/sword/etc) but there aren't any that actually cause a rule debate.

as well, alongside many psychic characters and psychic powers without FAQing into sixth.

What FAQ do you need? If it doesn't explicitly say "may trade for X book powers from Y disciplines" then you just have a default mastery level 1 psyker with specific powers that can't be exchanged. You might want to be able to take book powers, but it isn't a rule problem if you can't (just like IG psyker squads can't take book powers).

There are vehicles sans hull points, flying units that should or shouldn't be flying,

This was fixed immediately after 6th was released. Every vehicle has hull points and unit type listed, and if it doesn't it will be added if you tell them about it.

(And, AFAIK, if anything has been missed, it's one of those random fluff-based units that nobody will ever use.)

RAW entries that override the primary rulebook and reassert fifth (or fourth) edition rules on how to perform assaults, use templates, activate psychic powers, take leadership tests, etc. Without having the book in front of me I can't really say, but I bet I could find a good two dozen things needing faqs in the tyrants legion army section of the badaab war books alone.

Well, if you don't want to find it then we can't really discuss it. But in any case FW have said that they're working on 6th edition updates for that army list, so it's not a long-term problem. Just like how it didn't stop people from running tournaments when GW published 6th and failed miserably at immediately covering every problem with the updates.

TO's need to be consistent in maintaining "rule of cool" standards with standard codex conversions and "counts-as" before expanding to FW units.

It was on this very site a year or two ago that I read a batrep with a leafblower-esque army that had hydras with plastic soda straws for autocannons. I believe it was even on the top table and may have placed. I've also been to GT's that advertize "3 color minimum and based models" yet with one pass through the hall can fins several armies with unpainted or unfinished models.

Standard need to be enforced. Playing with all your toys is not the same as playing with unpainted, MacGyver'ed middle school art projects.

FW has not been allowed in any of the tournaments in my region as long as I've been playing. If you plug in our zip code into the GW store finder (14617), the closest GW store is 89 miles away and in another country (Canada). None of our independent retailers offer a selection of FW models or books. Yes, we're in the age of technology and internet shopping, but if a hobbyist has $100 burning a hole in their pocket in our area, it's almost a guarantee they will drive a few minutes to the closest shop and get the hot new model they can assemble and use right away. Not order, wait for shipping, look for someone that will let them use it, and petition for a local event to allow them. Independent retailers locally have no incentive to allow FW. It creates excitement about a product they don't offer and can detract sales from the items they do offer.

Like I said before, my stance is this:

We're playing a game and participating in a hobby that is based on fluff that's been written, re-written, and expanded over decades. Despite that, how many instances in the fluff will you find GK battling GK, or SW and IG fighting IG and SW? In the grim dark of the distant future there is only war, and it's almost always between good guys and bad guys with a few exceptions. The fact that tournaments are against the nature of the game and encourage good guys to battle other good guys further widens the gap between fluff and reality.

GW may not release codices balanced against each other, but at least they all have multiple options from each force org slot and players can create similar armies. FW does not release units equally or even closely equal between the good guys (imperial loyalists) and bad guys (xenos). Take the 30:5 ratio from marines:tyranids from earlier in the thread. "But GW favors marines anyways" doesn't fly with me. Justifying further imbalance by pointing out existing imbalance is a poor stance.

"Just let people play with all their toys" is fine and dandy. But when you incorporate an expansion line such as FW who provide dozens of toys for one guy and none for another leads to some pretty obvious effects. The guys who play armies that FW neglects will become discouraged and may not attend FW-friendly events. By attempting to make an event more inclusive, you will be excluding others. There's another portion who will flock to the imperial armies who have all the fun FW toys and xenos representation will further diminish.

When people stop playing the "bad guys", events will feature "good guys" vs "good guys" all day long. I know it happens now to a degree, but the gap will widen. GW will further distance themselves from the tournament scene as the games taking place will not be representative of their story line or vision of the grim dark future.

GW's ToS event was a great attempt to get back to their vision. Rewarding the best player of each codex encouraged people to venture away from their standard tournament armies and bring diversity back.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

GW may not release codices balanced against each other, but at least they all have multiple options from each force org slot and players can create similar armies. FW does not release units equally or even closely equal between the good guys (imperial loyalists) and bad guys (xenos). Take the 30:5 ratio from marines:tyranids from earlier in the thread. "But GW favors marines anyways" doesn't fly with me. Justifying further imbalance by pointing out existing imbalance is a poor stance.

Just checked FW:s webpage. I count 23 completely new SM units (not counting both Veteran Sergeant Culln and Commander Culln). Of these, 12 are variations of Codex units such as Land Raider variants, Predator variants and Rhino variants. As such, the number of units that you can't just treat like a Land Raider/Predator/Rhino etc. with some minor difference is just 11. Still more than twice the number of Nid units, but nowhere near a 5:1 ratio. Meanwhile, Grey Knights only get a measly 2 units, but I don't see anyone complaining about the Xenos getting 150% more new units than the Grey Knights.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just checked FW:s webpage. I count 23 completely new SM units (not counting both Veteran Sergeant Culln and Commander Culln). Of these, 12 are variations of Codex units such as Land Raider variants, Predator variants and Rhino variants. As such, the number of units that you can't just treat like a Land Raider/Predator/Rhino etc. with some minor difference is just 11. Still more than twice the number of Nid units, but nowhere near a 5:1 ratio. Meanwhile, Grey Knights only get a measly 2 units, but I don't see anyone complaining about the Xenos getting 150% more new units than the Grey Knights.

Plus, as has been mentioned already, many of the Imperial units are redundant ones, either because they're fluff-focused stuff like powerlifter Sentinels (a Sentinel with no gun used for moving cargo), or because the army already has so many top-tier options that the FW one doesn't make much of an impact. The xenos units, on the other hand, tend to be fewer in number but a higher proportion of them are things you'll actually want to use. So while, for example, IG get a couple units that might make it into a tournament list Tau get several new fast attack options, interesting new troops choices, and their only AA unit. In the end allowing FW gives a much larger benefit to the Tau player than to the IG player.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Standard need to be enforced. Playing with all your toys is not the same as playing with unpainted, MacGyver'ed middle school art projects.

Sure. I agree entirely with that, and I really wish that tournaments would strictly enforce painting and scratchbuilding rules to ban that garbage.

Yes, we're in the age of technology and internet shopping, but if a hobbyist has $100 burning a hole in their pocket in our area, it's almost a guarantee they will drive a few minutes to the closest shop and get the hot new model they can assemble and use right away.

So tournament rules should be based on impatient players who can't stop impulse buying? Should we also ban stuff like the character models you can only get from GW online and not at your FLGS?

The whole point about "availability" was that supposedly FW units are hard to get, not that people decide not to buy them. And of course it's a terrible argument to make in 2012 when online shopping is trivially easy.

In regards to the count as units, I want to use FW hyperios defence launchers in a up coming tourny (quite a important one as it has teams from the england and wales ETC boys) and I didnt want to pay 21GBP per model for each launcher, so I bought and converted two count as cyclone missile launchers, would this be ok by some of your standards? or would this be looked at as being too cheap to buy FW

I would have to see what you built but if they are about as big as whirlwind missile launchers they would probably be ok.

Dont think they are they are up to the shouders of a tac marine

Ala

Personally I think they are quite a bit smaller than they should be. I would probably not allow it for that reason.

yeah they are a bit small. they should be on a weapons team size base.

Would be alot easier to just use a Whirlwind Turret.

 whitedragon wrote:
Would be alot easier to just use a Whirlwind Turret.

And that turret needs to be on a large gun platform base which is at least 60mm around and raises the gun up. And the turret needs to be twice as wide as the real model is almost 2.5-3" across.

These fail rule of cool and MFA to me.

So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).

weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

MarkyMark wrote:
So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).

weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/SPACE-MARINE-AIR-DEFENCE-LAUNCHER.html

You can see it is almost the width of a rhino, and sits on a quad-pod at least 60mm wide.

Having an appropriate profile for determining cover and LOS and appropriate base size are minimal requirements for acceptable conversions or 'counts as' IMHO.

Maybe I should have got two for each launcher really,





Food for thought if I decide to use them again

nkelsch wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).

weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/SPACE-MARINE-AIR-DEFENCE-LAUNCHER.html

You can see it is almost the width of a rhino, and sits on a quad-pod at least 60mm wide.

Having an appropriate profile for determining cover and LOS and appropriate base size are minimal requirements for acceptable conversions or 'counts as' IMHO.

How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).

weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/SPACE-MARINE-AIR-DEFENCE-LAUNCHER.html

You can see it is almost the width of a rhino, and sits on a quad-pod at least 60mm wide.

Having an appropriate profile for determining cover and LOS and appropriate base size are minimal requirements for acceptable conversions or 'counts as' IMHO.

How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.

He's probably guessing that the mount is compatable with a Razorback turret, which would make it about the width of a Rhino chassis.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).

weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/SPACE-MARINE-AIR-DEFENCE-LAUNCHER.html

You can see it is almost the width of a rhino, and sits on a quad-pod at least 60mm wide.

Having an appropriate profile for determining cover and LOS and appropriate base size are minimal requirements for acceptable conversions or 'counts as' IMHO.

How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.

He's probably guessing that the mount is compatable with a Razorback turret, which would make it about the width of a Rhino chassis.

And I have seen the model in real life, and that same part is sold 4 different ways on the FW webstore, one of which is mounted on a Rhino which shows the large size of it.

Annoyingly I havent seen it in person nor could I find a picture of it next to a model for comparsion even on google images when I first bought it. Also the models I bought seemed bigger....

Have no choice but to use them this weekend as my army list has been sent in and on their website but yes I totally agree size is a big factor, everything else in my army is WYSIWYG and 3 colour min and based, even though I have only been collecting for 3 weeks, imo that is also a important factor. Looks like I will have to buy another 3 to doube them up or just buy the FW ones to go with my assault ram.

Sorry I have taken this thread a little off topic but it has helped me

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ADyso9fY-QI/S-CQUTX_sjI/AAAAAAAABlw/6NEqRdLXDdQ/s1600/SDC13786.JPG

Here is a shot of the Hyperios turret next to a Chimera. The base is the same as the one supplied with the Sabre Platform.

MarkyMark wrote:
Annoyingly I havent seen it in person nor could I find a picture of it next to a model for comparsion even on google images when I first bought it. Also the models I bought seemed bigger....

Have no choice but to use them this weekend as my army list has been sent in and on their website but yes I totally agree size is a big factor, everything else in my army is WYSIWYG and 3 colour min and based, even though I have only been collecting for 3 weeks, imo that is also a important factor. Looks like I will have to buy another 3 to doube them up or just buy the FW ones to go with my assault ram.

Sorry I have taken this thread a little off topic but it has helped me

Just boost them up on their bases a bit so that they can't hide behind a rhino. That should silence most opposition to it as a model. GW really needs to standardize the size of it's models, so much of the games lose rules for LOS and cover can be exploited casually or accidentally.

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).
weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/SPACE-MARINE-AIR-DEFENCE-LAUNCHER.html
You can see it is almost the width of a rhino, and sits on a quad-pod at least 60mm wide.
Having an appropriate profile for determining cover and LOS and appropriate base size are minimal requirements for acceptable conversions or 'counts as' IMHO.

How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.

He's probably guessing that the mount is compatable with a Razorback turret, which would make it about the width of a Rhino chassis.

And I have seen the model in real life, and that same part is sold 4 different ways on the FW webstore, one of which is mounted on a Rhino which shows the large size of it.

In the link you posted, you cannot see what I bolded.
It would've been better to link http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/AlternativeFW/xlarge/Whirlhyp2.jpg instead - much more clear.

MarkyMark wrote:
Annoyingly I havent seen it in person nor could I find a picture of it next to a model for comparsion even on google images when I first bought it. Also the models I bought seemed bigger....

Have no choice but to use them this weekend as my army list has been sent in and on their website but yes I totally agree size is a big factor, everything else in my army is WYSIWYG and 3 colour min and based, even though I have only been collecting for 3 weeks, imo that is also a important factor. Looks like I will have to buy another 3 to doube them up or just buy the FW ones to go with my assault ram.

Sorry I have taken this thread a little off topic but it has helped me

I don't think you took it off topic I think asking an opinion and getting the responses is exactly what we need to do sometimes.

I am for ForgeWorld in Tournaments. They are part of the rules now and restricting them for the LAYMAN is not a valid reason. Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The World of 40k has changed and we must adapt to all of it.

To restrict FW on the basis of unfamiliarity screams “CHANGE IS BAD”. 6th Ed is a big change and FW units are part of the game now and if you come up against a FW unit you haven’t played before you simply read the rules on that unit, which your opponent is required to have and you adapt. This is not a difficult thing to do for a competent General. I still have to explain and show rules from my normal Codex to my opponents from time to time at Tournaments and I am running Orks.

I read through your posts and understand the points you are making and I have to disagree with you OverwatchCNC on this. Furthermore, I hope Frontline and other Major GTs keep allowing us to play with all available units allowed through the new GW rules.

6th Ed is a different game. We have to adapt to all of it and not jump to a negative outlook of restricting parts of it.

 Dugg wrote:
6th Ed is a different game. We have to adapt to all of it and not jump to a negative outlook of restricting parts of it.

The change from 5th ed to 6th ed ≠the change from allowing FW to disallowing it (or vice versa). I think that was actually the reason for the OP's post. For some reason, people wanted to link the edition change to allowing/disallowing FW. They are separate issues, imo.

The tourny I used the hyperios at of course allowed FW rules, there was a lot, and I mean a lot of hyperios launchers there, I only took 3 but some people took 12, I can understand both sides of the story, it is a mean weapon against flyers and deep strikers, against demons it is over powered against flyers it is a good deterent.

On the warhammer forum there is quite a bit of moaning about these rules, a few people are asking for FW rules to be restricted so they cant be spammed, this was suggested by a necron player with 6 flyers, well imo if you are going to spam flyers, dont be suprised when your opponent spams AA units.

I have no problem with FW being used at tournies but it seems a few of the more competitive players are the ones moaning about them after this weekends tourny, most of these competitive players spammed either transports (i,e 5 GK razorbacks 5 chimerias with 3 'detta's, the two necron players with 3 nightsycthe 3 doom sycthe and a demon player with 3 lots of 9 flamers) from what I have seen spam begets spam, no matter if its codex or FW

MarkyMark wrote:
T from what I have seen spam begets spam, no matter if its codex or FW

This is so true.

I have no problem with people bringing them but i would be willing to bet most people didn't have the forgeworld books with them. if an event is allowing forgeworld, you should be required to have the books with you not photo copies of the rules.

 skkipper wrote:
I have no problem with people bringing them but i would be willing to bet most people didn't have the forgeworld books with them. if an event is allowing forgeworld, you should be required to have the books with you not photo copies of the rules.

People should always have the rules for any unit they wish to use on hand. I used to agree they needed the book with them and always carried two backpacks full of books, but now days I have to drive at least 3.5 hours for a game so I just bring my iPad with PDF versions of all of the rules. I also bring a few print outs from my computer for opponents to read thru for Forgeworld stuff.

 Dugg wrote:
I am for ForgeWorld in Tournaments. They are part of the rules now and restricting them for the LAYMAN is not a valid reason. Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The World of 40k has changed and we must adapt to all of it.

To restrict FW on the basis of unfamiliarity screams “CHANGE IS BAD”. 6th Ed is a big change and FW units are part of the game now and if you come up against a FW unit you haven’t played before you simply read the rules on that unit, which your opponent is required to have and you adapt. This is not a difficult thing to do for a competent General. I still have to explain and show rules from my normal Codex to my opponents from time to time at Tournaments and I am running Orks.

I read through your posts and understand the points you are making and I have to disagree with you OverwatchCNC on this. Furthermore, I hope Frontline and other Major GTs keep allowing us to play with all available units allowed through the new GW rules.

6th Ed is a different game. We have to adapt to all of it and not jump to a negative outlook of restricting parts of it.

Sorry Dugg, I respect you and your opinion but equating 6th ed to FW doesn't work.

There is zero evidence in the actual 6th ed rulebook to support the idea that FW is somehow now part of 6th ed. There is just as much evidence of FW being part of the core rules in the 3rd-5th ed rulebooks as there is in the 6th ed book.

Like RiTides said the change to 6th ed does not automatically equal the necessity to include FW. This idea stems from the argument Reecius, Yakface, and many others to name a few made when 6th came out. The argument that "Hey, there are so many changes happening with 6th we may as well just go whole hog, jump in the deep end, and allow FW as well!" While a descent argument in and of itself it has absolutely zero basis in anything actually written in the 6th ed book more so than was written in 5th or before.

I am not for banning FW in all respects or at all tournaments. I just want there to be actual variety and I am encouraging TOs to not all jump on the FW bandwagon for bandwagonings sake.

MarkyMark wrote:

I have no problem with FW being used at tournies but it seems a few of the more competitive players are the ones moaning about them after this weekends tourny, most of these competitive players spammed either transports (i,e 5 GK razorbacks 5 chimerias with 3 'detta's, the two necron players with 3 nightsycthe 3 doom sycthe and a demon player with 3 lots of 9 flamers) from what I have seen spam begets spam, no matter if its codex or FW

Agreed, there is nothing quite so fine as a Mechanised Spamming Tank list, meets an Anti-Tank heavy Army and gets spanked.

Spammy army's are a specialist build, but as with many specialist build they exploit ill thought through rules and points undercosting to maximum effect. The problem is that to beat a Spammy Army, you generally have to Spam in the opposite direction and then you end up in a SPAM ARMS RACE.

Back on FW stuff, it should be at the TO discretion, I like the playing in tournaments with 1500 points + 250 point FW on models / Spearheads / Apocalypse units. But I wouldn't want to play that all the time, they are Fun Tournaments where we have board based special rules like Necron Pylon shooting at random units.

So long as the TO is clear it's a take it or leave it affair, I certainly don't spit my dummy out when I cannot take a Titan Hammer Squad or a Thunderhawk to a 2000pt Tournament. People need to get some perspective.

Without the hyperios launchers and I think quite a few saber things? and hydras the top players with the spammy lists would have walked it even more, but facing a lot of anti tank which were usually hiding behind a defence line a lot of them were restricted Without the hyperios's a lot of the marine armies wouldnt have been able to field that much anti tank

Sadly I didnt get a chance to watch the top table, where the ETC boys were playing as I would have liked to have seen them in action.

I am both for competitive tournies and fun tournies, as i have just started playing, heck i am used to losing but its a learning curve, most games I learnt something new about my army, or about the other codex's

Forgeworld is not part of 6th edition core rules. My bet is that tournaments in general that disallow FW will have a higher attendance than tournies that do.

Not all forgeworld is created equal and not all armies have equal access to equivocal units in forgeworld. Call it what you will but I think that forgeworld opens up a whole new bag of imbalance into 6th and overly favors imperial armies.

OverwatchCNC wrote:
There is zero evidence in the actual 6th ed rulebook to support the idea that FW is somehow now part of 6th ed. There is just as much evidence of FW being part of the core rules in the 3rd-5th ed rulebooks as there is in the 6th ed book.

There is also zero evidence in the 6th ed rulebook to support the idea that Space Wolves are legal. The Space Wolf codex says it's legal, and so you go with that. Guess what, the FW books say they're legal. They're published by GW. Their copyrights are owned by GW. They're sold at GW shops. They're just as legal as any codex. It is only your stubborn refusal to acknowledge what is written in clear English that keeps this argument going.

mortetvie wrote:Not all forgeworld is created equal and not all armies have equal access to equivocal units in forgeworld. Call it what you will but I think that forgeworld opens up a whole new bag of imbalance into 6th and overly favors imperial armies.

Not every codex is created equal and not all armies have equal access to equivocal units in their codex. This game isn't balanced from the get go. Space Marines don't get 2 base attacks, space wovles do. Space Marines don't get a heavy weapon squad that can split fire, space wolves do. Big F'n Deal. Favours Imperial armies? What codex doesn't? You're only pointing out the similarities between Forgeworld and the rest of GW here, you know.

Rules too difficult to get - but yet currently everyone is supposed to have a working knowledge of a dozen or so codices so what's one more.

Models too expensive - convert them from cheaper ones.

My army that was going to destroy all has been undone by FW units - deal with it like you expected that opponent you were going to wipe off the table to do.

It looks like FW AA may have saved the game from turning into a one sided strafing run or flyer fest.

Given that a lot of FW models are designed for larger games, it doesn't seem likely that FW will have that much effect.

I'm betting that a lot of those upgrades for land raiders will appear in the new codex and the same for the other units in their codecis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redbeard wrote:

Guess what, the FW books say they're legal. They're published by GW. Their copyrights are owned by GW. They're sold at GW shops.

FW models are also GW models. Anyone who has ever bought anything from FW will see that their sprues have Games Workshop on them.

Some interesting points made on both sides of the aisle in this thread...just for interest...has reading peoples comments changed anyone's personal stance on FW in tournaments?

@ OverwatchCNC – I am talking about the fact that we are playing 40k 6th Edition and FW has 40k approved units. I could easily say “The Current” Edition. FW units are 40k approved and they have all the 6th references in their newest FAQ.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf

ForgeWorld will help balance Tournaments not imbalance them. You don’t need a 1 for 1 equivalent per Codex to balance the game. Having FW in your Tournaments will open Anit-Flyer units in a larger scale and in turn you will see less Flyer spam as a result. This retroactively helps Armies that have problems with Flyers, helping those Armies without them ever having to take a FW unit themselves.

I’m talking big picture here guys.

All that said, OverwatchCNC you and other TOs can run Tournament however you guys see fit. Many of us on here are just happy to have you brave guys running these events and I commend you for doing so. I’m just giving my opinion and do understand that this will be a heated topic for some time to come. This doesn’t mean I will not attend a Tournament that does not allow FW, it just means that I would rather have FW and would have to weigh the rule set of said Tournament with cost of going and decide, much like everyone does already. ;-)

 mortetvie wrote:
Not all forgeworld is created equal and not all armies have equal access to equivocal units in forgeworld. Call it what you will but I think that forgeworld opens up a whole new bag of imbalance into 6th and overly favors imperial armies.

Or, in other words, "I haven't read the thread and just thought I'd post this here, despite the point having been raised six or seven times already".

If you don't let forge world in Tournaments, then how do Red Scorpion players (with Apothecaries for all squads) enter? Hmm?

 The Survivor wrote:
If you don't let forge world in Tournaments, then how do Red Scorpion players (with Apothecaries for all squads) enter? Hmm?

Easy, change your list around to make them fit with one of the Marine codecies. They may not be as Red Scorpion-y as before, but at least they're tournament legal if the tournament in question has decided that it's not allowing Forge World. That's like saying, if you don't allow Forge World, then how do people with Contemptor Dreadnoughts in their army lists enter? Take the Contemptor Dreadnoughts out.

Run them as Blood Angels and take a ton of Sanguinary Priests and attach one to each unit? And just take some modelling liberties. That one's actually pretty easy!

 RiTides wrote:
Run them as Blood Angels and take a ton of Sanguinary Priests and attach one to each unit? And just take some modelling liberties. That one's actually pretty easy!

I don't think he's trying to lose . Red scorpions would probably slot pretty well into current meta actually. The marine sarge is a wasted opportunity cost these days, and FNP on all troops without the heavy added cost or vulnerability of something like the sang priest would be great.

 ironicsilence wrote:
Some interesting points made on both sides of the aisle in this thread...just for interest...has reading peoples comments changed anyone's personal stance on FW in tournaments?

I had no strong feelings either way, but now I am leaning toward no FW in tournaments. I see it sort of like the different formats in MTG (forgive me it has been a long time since I was into that game) because there is a huge difference between the decks that draw from all the sets and the decks that draw from only the newer ones. In smaller games of 1500 points or less it seems that FW can be a huge imbalancer depending on the army, perhaps limit it to larger competitions (2000+ points) so that the armies that don't get big FW buffs can at least take double FOC.

I think a double standard for counts-as exists when you allow FW units but not the same counts as freedoms that you allow with codex units. Then you factor in the "not so serious" tournament player who leaves with a "gotcha" feeling in his gut after facing a unit he wasn't fully familiar with. I should also explain that I don't have FW books or models so I have no real stake in the argument but it does make me wary of spending time and money to go to events that allow them because of unfamiliarity, perceived elitism, and biased counts as justifications.

Just my opinions from what I have learned from this very informative thread.

Or just mabey he wants to play the army he built. He may have spent a ton of money and time on it.

From my experince last weekend, which I already mentioned, it wasnt the average players that were moaning (and there was quite a bit of moaning....) it was the higher end players that complained about forgeworld

Pretty much all the forgeworld models I have the rules for (ok I have read aeronautica a little) mainly use the USR's found in the 'core' rule book, i.e skyfire interceptor jink etc etc, a few have one new rule. I offered my aeronautica book to every opponent before the game, most said its cool after I explained its basically a krak missile with skyfire interceptor.

I can go through the rules and note exactly how many new rules there are but I doubt there will be more then 10 which covers all the units for the different races in there.

I will have to say that I am not a big fan of using FW in tournaments.

That being said I will still go to tournaments that do allow FW.

Each TO has the right to run his or her own tournament the way they wish and FW is no different then say using custom Missions or Comp or any other thing they can think of.

AS LONG AS IT IS CLEAR before the tournament and we as players know what can happen then it would be fine with me.

The one thing I would really like to see is a list of each FW unit allowed in your tournament and what book it is currently in. There are too many cases of the same unit being in two or more books and if I as a player don't know about it then it really dosen't matter if my opponent shows me the rules in his book. If it's not the most recent book I would have no way of knowing.

I agree with Doc above and second a list with the updated rules that will be allowed at a tournament. That way the most recent rules are going to be used. Every should be able to look at a codex and realize it's the old rules. That's not something that's possible with FW items.

Seperately I'll add that I feel FW heavily favors Imperial forces. Does this mean there are a higher percentage of poop units for Imperials? Sure. But the higher number means even a small percentage of good units is going to be higher for imperial forces, especially with allies.

Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.

Just my read on it.

 Hulksmash wrote:

Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much.

Given that most aren't exactly spectacularly powerful units and serve little purpose if there aren't flyers around, they're not that big a deal for what typically are basically easily killed autocannon-equivalent units. One will notice that without Interceptor, Hydras actually aren't making as big appearance on tables as they were previously under 5th, at least in my observations, despite possibly being the best AA unit in the game otherwise.

And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.

That may be reading a bit too much into it. Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities isn't something one typically associates with CSM's, unlike say, Tau or Imperial Guard. Additionally just because one book doesn't have it doesn't mean they intend for such abilities to be super-rare, they may just not have thought it appropriate for CSM's for whatever reason (theme, want to wait until 6th is well and entrenched before bringing the hammer down on flyers, etc) or just legitimately didn't think about it. It's one book in, one that is largely a fantasy book mashed with the previous book more than anything truly new.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That may be reading a bit too much into it. Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities isn't something one typically associates with CSM's, unlike say, Tau or Imperial Guard. ...

Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities weren't something I typically associated with any 40k faction, given that aircraft were unknown 40,000 years in the future, until quite recently. If no one has aircraft, then why would anyone need anti-aircraft tools? Conversely, now that everyone has aircraft, it makes no sense that everyone doesn't have an answer to it.

having FW at tournaments is nothing but great for the game. space sharks, shadow spectres, tomb stalkers, beautiful models with cool rules..what's not to like?

the biggest bonus, outside of the aesthetic, is the addition of having a broader and more diverse meta which is continually changing: forgeworld regularly releases new stuff, which means that the meta isn't a static environment where one small subset of spam lists will dominate the tournament scene. i love the idea of showing up to a tournament and having no idea what kind of force i'm going to be facing.

it also doesn't hurt to know that if you're saddled with a weak codex for another 3 or 4 years, forgeworld might have something that makes your army playable again coming out next month.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That may be reading a bit too much into it. Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities isn't something one typically associates with CSM's, unlike say, Tau or Imperial Guard. ...

Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities weren't something I typically associated with any 40k faction, given that aircraft were unknown 40,000 years in the future, until quite recently. If no one has aircraft, then why would anyone need anti-aircraft tools? Conversely, now that everyone has aircraft, it makes no sense that everyone doesn't have an answer to it.

True to an extent, however aircraft and defensive weapons are generally associated more with certain factions than others. The Imperial Guard for example, have had a model for AA units since almost the 90's from FW and an epic model longer IIRC, in addition to having it in their codex for more than 3 years now, along with extensive fluff/imagery of aircraft and cannons firing into the sky.

And I'm not saying every faction shouldn't have AA capabilities, only that GW doesn't necessarily think along the lines most rational people do. Oblits being Ld8 and no longer fearless with the new CSM book being one example of such

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much.

Given that most aren't exactly spectacularly powerful units and serve little purpose if there aren't flyers around, they're not that big a deal for what typically are basically easily killed autocannon-equivalent units. One will notice that without Interceptor, Hydras actually aren't making as big appearance on tables as they were previously under 5th, at least in my observations, despite possibly being the best AA unit in the game otherwise.

The point is they are cheap enough to take so that they aren't a choice if there might be flyers. The reason you don't see hydra's is people being forced to choose anti-air over killing stuff on the table. Most forgeworld units aren't a choice. They give you the ability to do both. Havocs have the ability to do both but bear in mind that you pay out the nose for them (175pts for 5 dudes w/4 missile launchers) and still don't have the interceptor rule. Compare that to the sabre platforms. Honestly I feel that the inclusion of FW pushes us back toward 5th. Not away from it.

Redbeard covered the anti-air thoughts. Personally I'd think chaos would have more than marines since they are self reliant to an extent.

Hulksmash wrote:

The point is they are cheap enough to take so that they aren't a choice if there might be flyers.

Hrm, I don't think so, most are fairly easily engaged and/or easily killed (hydra platforms, flakkatraks, etc) or are hideously expensive (Eldar Firestorm).

The reason you don't see hydra's is people being forced to choose anti-air over killing stuff on the table.

and the fact that you can just take a ton of anti-infantry autocannons instead and still be decently covered for anti-air. Pure AA platforms just aren't worth it because too many armies don't have flyers and of those that do half are MC's that most AA weapons are rather pitiful against (oh yay, T6 3+sv flying dudes that I need more than twice as many flakk missiles/AA autocannon shots to kill as I do to kill a Stormraven!) or aren't taken all the time. They're *too* niche, and you're better off just bringing flyers of your own instead. Flyers themselves on the other hand are not too niche as they can engage every target without too much trouble.

Most forgeworld units aren't a choice. They give you the ability to do both.

You mean...just like Flyers themselves do? It's not like most of these are spectacular units in and of themselves for the most part either here.

Havocs have the ability to do both but bear in mind that you pay out the nose for them (175pts for 5 dudes w/4 missile launchers) and still don't have the interceptor rule.

And one will notice many feel they are overcosted as such. Point for point, you're not much worse off buying autocannons instead for 60pts less. A Forgefiend for the same cost will give you better anti-infantry/anti-vehicle capabilities and have an equal chance of killing a flyer outright and require only a slightly higher average number of shots to kill a flyer through HP loss.

Compare that to the sabre platforms. Honestly I feel that the inclusion of FW pushes us back toward 5th. Not away from it.

In what way?

Redbeard covered the anti-air thoughts. Personally I'd think chaos would have more than marines since they are self reliant to an extent.

I dunno, typically to my mind and the way it looks like they've been designed, they're more offensive oriented, prone to engage enemy flyers with their own flyers than ground based AA units. Either way, I'm not against them having AA units, just trying to explain how I see the designers choice regarding AA not as one purely of game balance, especially as the studio came right out and plainly stated at their open day event that they didn't design 6th and don't intend to design codex books around balanced competitive play.

So if you're playing that, you're already playing the game in a manner the design studio never intended and isn't writing rules/units for. I really wish the situation were different because I feel it'd benefit everyone, but it's not.

Vaktathi wrote:True to an extent, however aircraft and defensive weapons are generally associated more with certain factions than others. The Imperial Guard for example, have had a model for AA units since almost the 90's from FW and an epic model longer IIRC, in addition to having it in their codex for more than 3 years now, along with extensive fluff/imagery of aircraft and cannons firing into the sky.

And I'm not saying every faction shouldn't have AA capabilities, only that GW doesn't necessarily think along the lines most rational people do. Oblits being Ld8 and no longer fearless with the new CSM book being one example of such

When I think of anti-aircraft, I think of German 88mm guns, and handheld ground-to-air missiles. While the former might look IGish, the latter is perfectly reasonable to imagine in the hands of chaos, marines, guard, orks or whatever. I think it's somewhat funny that an argument against forgeworld in tournaments is that it might give anti-air guns to factions "not perceived to have anti-air capabilities", based on a perception formed by FW units.

Hulksmash wrote:
The point is they are cheap enough to take so that they aren't a choice if there might be flyers. The reason you don't see hydra's is people being forced to choose anti-air over killing stuff on the table.

Agreed with Hulk, but wanted to add, this is absolutely ridiculous from any realism perspective. The aforementioned German 88s were one of the most feared anti-tank guns in WWII. They were designed as anti-aircraft guns. The idea that you can't point an anti-aircraft gun at a ground target is so laughably bad, it could only have come from GW.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
... especially as the studio came right out and plainly stated at their open day event that they didn't design 6th and don't intend to design codex books around balanced competitive play.

So if you're playing that, you're already playing the game in a manner the design studio never intended and isn't writing rules/units for. I really wish the situation were different because I feel it'd benefit everyone, but it's not.

Strangely, the GW design team said the exact same thing, that they weren't interested in designing rules or codexes around balanced competitive play. Simply being involved in a tournament is playing the game in a manner that the designers never intended...

 Redbeard wrote:


When I think of anti-aircraft, I think of German 88mm guns, and handheld ground-to-air missiles. While the former might look IGish, the latter is perfectly reasonable to imagine in the hands of chaos, marines, guard, orks or whatever. I think it's somewhat funny that an argument against forgeworld in tournaments is that it might give anti-air guns to factions "not perceived to have anti-air capabilities", based on a perception formed by FW units.

I'm not saying that perception is based on FW units, hydras originally are from epic if I'm not mistaken, but really it's more about how CSM's are generally portrayed. They are offensive in nature, they don't carry lots of defensive countermeasures. The new book illustrates this concept several ways. One is that SM's have Bolster Defenses, CSM's have Shatter Defenses, etc.

It's just one way to look at *why* they didn't necessarily include lots of AA stuff in the CSM book that's not game balance related. I'm not saying it's definitive or anything like that.

Hulksmash wrote:
Agreed with Hulk, but wanted to add, this is absolutely ridiculous from any realism perspective. The aforementioned German 88s were one of the most feared anti-tank guns in WWII. They were designed as anti-aircraft guns. The idea that you can't point an anti-aircraft gun at a ground target is so laughably bad, it could only have come from GW.

Indeed it is, in fact, 88's were much better AT guns than they were AA guns. As AA guns they were designed to engage aircraft at high altitude in conjunction with multiple other guns, whereas in an AT role they could engage and destroy multiple tanks within minutes by themselves.

Strangely, the GW design team said the exact same thing, that they weren't interested in designing rules or codexes around balanced competitive play. Simply being involved in a tournament is playing the game in a manner that the designers never intended...

Right, that's exactly what I was saying, so if you're already engaging in play in a manner that the game wasn't intended for, that was never designed to be balanced in the first place, I'm not really seeing the standing on "balance" for tournaments not allowing Forgeworld considering it's already way outside what the game was designed and intended for in the first place, all it's going to do is produce a slightly different meta.

Indeed it is, in fact, 88's were much better AT guns than they were AA guns. As AA guns they were designed to engage aircraft at high altitude in conjunction with multiple other guns, whereas in an AT role they could engage and destroy multiple tanks within minutes by themselves.

One of the interesting things about AA Guns, is that you want a High Velocity shell with as straight a trajectory as possible combined with very high elevation angles in order to lay fused shells precisely in space so they detonate providing Flak bursts for aircraft to fly through. (the high speed and relatively flat trajectory tend to make good AT guns!).



The Royal Navy has had issues as the 4.5" Gun designed back in 1938 (although it has been updated through service life), it is a very accurate and good gun system. The problem is it is too accurate, great at hitting a precise point in space, however in shore bombardment it is too accurate and therefore area bombardments were ineffective until they designed the system to have an Error input in the system to make it more effective against land based targets.

Every hear of gun being too accurate? Also that is alot of Brass there, some serious cash at a scrap merchants we used to make them into Umbrella Stands... Till the penny pinchers came in.

Way off-topic but couldn't resist. *ahem* back to FW at Tourneys.

 Hulksmash wrote:
. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.

Just my read on it.

Quad gun or Icacrus las cannon?

I'd be fine with Forge World as long as there was a ban list for the few units that simply ruin some matchups (Sabre Defense Platforms, Cæstus Assault Ram, etc.), but I think that no Forge World is a more logical way to go than Forge World with a ban list, and Forge World without a ban list seems extremely unbalanced.

Hulksmash's points about the restriction of Interceptor are dead on. Interceptor is an extremely powerful rule and should not be handed out as liberally as it is with many Forge World units.

Interceptor just auto wins on Daemons too.

O'gosh, I get to shoot them with one gun out of sequence and that makes it OP.

MarkyMark wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.

Just my read on it.

Quad gun or Icacrus las cannon?

That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out?

And that's why I said I feel like allowing forgeworld unlimited is going back to 5th. Since flyers would quickly go down the toilet bowl and Daemons would be back to being nearly unplayable. Yay!

@Gray Templar

The problem is it isn't a single weapon. Forgeworld gives you access to quite a few. That's why I said nearly, not totally.

Consider what you give up to take all that Skyfire from Forge World.

FW units often come with a steep price tag, either in points or competitive FoC slot.

Just because you can take X number of good FW units doesn't mean its the best idea. You often lose out on other choices in your codex that might be essential.

 Hulksmash wrote:
That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out?

Well, given that they published IA:Aeronautica instead of telling the author to go back and try again, I'd say it's a safe bet that GW wants that much AA available.

And you could also argue that the rest of 6th has so little AA because FW offers those units. If FW has printed a perfectly good AA unit already and you don't have an additional model to sell with new rules, why add it to the codex? You might even suggest that GW sees flyers as being a rare supplement to the game, so a quad gun is fine and the only reason you'd need AA is if you're also adding lots of flyers to make a special flyer-based scenario. I would not be surprised at all to hear that GW had no clue stuff like Necron flyerspam was ever going to be played in a real game.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Consider what you give up to take all that Skyfire from Forge World.

FW units often come with a steep price tag, either in points or competitive FoC slot.

Just because you can take X number of good FW units doesn't mean its the best idea. You often lose out on other choices in your codex that might be essential.

That is so untrue. FW gives these out like candy at very cheap. The FW has been proposed by some to help boost attendance at their events in my opinion.

Based on this tread I don't their is enough true support to get it off the ground and Adepticon is an exception to the general rule.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out?

Well, given that they published IA:Aeronautica instead of telling the author to go back and try again, I'd say it's a safe bet that GW wants that much AA available.

And you could also argue that the rest of 6th has so little AA because FW offers those units. If FW has printed a perfectly good AA unit already and you don't have an additional model to sell with new rules, why add it to the codex? You might even suggest that GW sees flyers as being a rare supplement to the game, so a quad gun is fine and the only reason you'd need AA is if you're also adding lots of flyers to make a special flyer-based scenario. I would not be surprised at all to hear that GW had no clue stuff like Necron flyerspam was ever going to be played in a real game.

I'm pretty sure I'm a reasonable human being. After the way you've conducted yourself in this thread and a few others you're one of those people I simply won't bother discussing things with you. I felt the need to let you know since it will save us both time. I will however have conversations with rational individuals with whom I disagree.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm a reasonable human being. After the way you've conducted yourself in this thread and a few others you're one of those people I simply won't bother discussing things with you. I felt the need to let you know since it will save us both time. I will however have conversations with rational individuals with whom I disagree.

Yeah, such an unreasonable position, suggesting that the default be that we play the game according to the actual rules...

 Peregrine wrote:
. I would not be surprised at all to hear that GW had no clue stuff like Necron flyerspam was ever going to be played in a real game.

As clueless as I believe they are sometimes, they can't be that clueless.

 Hulksmash wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.

Just my read on it.

Quad gun or Icacrus las cannon?

That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out?

And that's why I said I feel like allowing forgeworld unlimited is going back to 5th. Since flyers would quickly go down the toilet bowl and Daemons would be back to being nearly unplayable. Yay!

@Gray Templar

The problem is it isn't a single weapon. Forgeworld gives you access to quite a few. That's why I said nearly, not totally.

Ah most recent book i.e CSM, sorry I read most recent as the rule book my bad. Although I do agree interceptor is overpowered in that it can shoot at anything coming in from reserves and as you mention demons, having a large amount of saber or hyperios do usually tear demons a new one.

It does need some balance as at the moment flyer spam cannot be countered by most armies without having flyer spam yourself, did GW intended flyers to be king and hard to hit by most things, did GW intend for interceptor to be rare and special? I have no idea how GW act or think when writing rules so I cant comment on that, but it is at the opposite ends of the scale and currently doesnt seem very fair, FW can help address the balance but it can also be spammed just like every other powerful unit in the game FW or 'core'.

MarkyMark wrote:
Although I do agree interceptor is overpowered in that it can shoot at anything coming in from reserves and as you mention demons, having a large amount of saber or hyperios do usually tear demons a new one.

To be fair, we can't really blame FW for that, since it's the fault of whatever idiot GW author thought it would be a good idea to combine "may also shoot at ground targets" and "may take a free shot at incoming reserves" into a single rule without allowing "may also shoot at ground targets" as a separate rule. FW HAD to give those units Interceptor just to let them continue to shoot at ground targets effectively.

I prefer "no Forge World" to "no Flyers." I'm not sure that either one is intrinsically more balanced than the other, but quite frankly, Flyers are a core part of the game and Forge World models aren't, and I'd rather force as few people to change as possible. In particular, allowing Sabre Defense Platforms essentially makes Flyers irrelevant to the game, and slams Codex: Dæmons and Drop Pod armies pretty damn hard to boot. There really isn't much of a reason to field Flyers when Sabre Defense Platforms (and to a lesser extent Hyperios Air Defense Launchers) are in the game,

Since GW's 6th edition balance clearly seems to involve interplay between Flyers and limited ground-to-air choices, I think allowing some of the ridiculous ground-to-air options provided by Forge World substantially reduces the balance and skill involved in 6th edition play.

 Kingsley wrote:
I'm not sure that either one is intrinsically more balanced than the other, but quite frankly, Flyers are a core part of the game and Forge World models aren't, and I'd rather force as few people to change as possible.

Except that FW is just as much a core part of the game as flyers. Unless of course by "flyers" you mean only codex units, with the ork and marine flyers banned?

As for forcing people to change, why is this even being considered? Do we ban the use of any codex written after a certain point so that nobody has to change their army to account for new stuff? Do we keep playing 5th because people would have to change their armies to deal with the new changes 6th adds? Do we ban people from trying new army concepts because it might introduce a metagame shift that forces people to change their armies to adapt? Of course we don't. Change is a constant in 40k, and you either deal with it or stop playing, no matter where the change comes from.

In particular, allowing Sabre Defense Platforms essentially makes Flyers irrelevant to the game, and slams Codex: Dæmons and Drop Pod armies pretty damn hard to boot. There really isn't much of a reason to field Flyers when Sabre Defense Platforms (and to a lesser extent Hyperios Air Defense Launchers) are in the game,

Except:

1) Flyers and dedicated AA units exist in balance. If the metagame favors flyers dedicated AA becomes popular. If people stop bringing flyers because of all the Sabre and Hyperios platforms then those AA units become redundant and people stop bringing them. Eventually things will most likely settle at some kind of balance where both exist to some degree but neither dominates.

2) They don't hurt flyers, they hurt flyerspam armies. You know, the armies that have no meaningful on-table presence to blow up the AA units before they get to fire. Sure, that's hard to do against AA spam, but AA spam only exists until it drives flyerspam out of the metagame. Once you're talking about a small number of platforms a list with 1-2 flyers can kill them before the flyers arrive.

Plus, if you're really paranoid about those platforms ruining the game, there's a simple solution: ban aegis lines.

Since GW's 6th edition balance clearly seems to involve interplay between Flyers and limited ground-to-air choices, I think allowing some of the ridiculous ground-to-air options provided by Forge World substantially reduces the balance and skill involved in 6th edition play.

How is there skill involved in "my codex doesn't have any AA weapons"? Or in "throw lots of AC shots at it and hope for 6s"? This isn't really deep strategy we're talking about here.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
I'm not sure that either one is intrinsically more balanced than the other, but quite frankly, Flyers are a core part of the game and Forge World models aren't, and I'd rather force as few people to change as possible.

Except that FW is just as much a core part of the game as flyers. Unless of course by "flyers" you mean only codex units, with the ork and marine flyers banned?

Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models. If Games Workshop itself said, in a Games Workshop publication, that Forge World models were legal, then they'd be on the same level. As it stands, they aren't, and the fact that official Games Workshop tournaments don't allow them should be all the proof we need to put this tired old myth to rest.

Peregrine wrote:

In particular, allowing Sabre Defense Platforms essentially makes Flyers irrelevant to the game, and slams Codex: Dæmons and Drop Pod armies pretty damn hard to boot. There really isn't much of a reason to field Flyers when Sabre Defense Platforms (and to a lesser extent Hyperios Air Defense Launchers) are in the game,

Except:

1) Flyers and dedicated AA units exist in balance. If the metagame favors flyers dedicated AA becomes popular. If people stop bringing flyers because of all the Sabre and Hyperios platforms then those AA units become redundant and people stop bringing them. Eventually things will most likely settle at some kind of balance where both exist to some degree but neither dominates.

This sounds well and good, but unfortunately Forge World's anti-aircraft units don't exist in balance, because they're very strong choices even if flyers aren't in the game. For instance, Sabre platforms count as Artillery and are thus massively better than the Imperial Guard Heavy Weapon Squads they replace. Normally, there is a balance-- flakk missiles, for instance, are expensive enough that taking them is a serious choice-- but Forge World has several units that counter flyers while still being obvious choices for a normal army. For instance, Forge World rules give normal "Rifleman" Dreadnoughts Interceptor and Skyfire when stationary in a Dark Angels army. Since people already run those all the time, all changes like this do is hose Flyers.

Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition. There's no reason to make tough choices about your balance of Flyers, dedicated anti-air units, and pseudo anti-air units when you can simply take units that are good against ground units and also-- seemingly for free-- get to blow Flyers out of the sky before the Flyers even get a chance to attack.

 Kingsley wrote:
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models. If Games Workshop itself said, in a Games Workshop publication, that Forge World models were legal, then they'd be on the same level. As it stands, they aren't, and the fact that official Games Workshop tournaments don't allow them should be all the proof we need to put this tired old myth to rest.

Every single FW book is a Games Workshop publication, so your standard has been met.

And who cares what GW allows in their single remaining tournament, they also don't allow more than 500 points of allies. But yet I don't see anyone demanding that everyone follow GW's example and ban lists with more than 500 points of allies.

This sounds well and good, but unfortunately Forge World's anti-aircraft units don't exist in balance, because they're very strong choices even if flyers aren't in the game. For instance, Sabre platforms count as Artillery and are thus massively better than the Imperial Guard Heavy Weapon Squads they replace.

Sure, but HWS aren't that good so it doesn't take much for a unit to be better than them. In the absence of flyerspam lists to worry about the Sabre platforms are good, but a little on the expensive side and not something you can afford to spam.

For instance, Forge World rules give normal "Rifleman" Dreadnoughts Interceptor and Skyfire when stationary in a Dark Angels army. Since people already run those all the time, all changes like this do is hose Flyers.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing the problem with giving the poor Dark Angels player (singular) something decent to make up for the rest of the codex being awful.

There's no reason to make tough choices about your balance of Flyers, dedicated anti-air units, and pseudo anti-air units when you can simply take units that are good against ground units and also-- seemingly for free-- get to blow Flyers out of the sky before the Flyers even get a chance to attack.

You're right, that would be a problem. Fortunately we don't have that problem since FW's AA units aren't like that. At most you could argue that the Sabre guns are too good (though mostly because GW changed the artillery rules, the old Sabre platforms were pretty bad), but all of the other AA units are marginal at best if you don't need to plan against flyerspam.

Interceptor doesn't autowin against all deamon lists. Sure it would work well against flying circus, but T3/t4 Tzeentch deamons are not a great target for intercepting lascannons, and once they intercept they don't shoot next turn.

Kingsley wrote:
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models.

No, not everyone knows this. Some of us know that Forgeworld models are GW models. That's the portion of us who are literate.

Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition

You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.

You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.

+1 this.

 Redbeard wrote:

Kingsley wrote:
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models.

No, not everyone knows this. Some of us know that Forgeworld models are GW models. That's the portion of us who are literate.

Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition

You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.

Totally agree that the 'core' rules arent balanced across the board, and he gave a perfect example of one, Dark Angels, how, bar the can possibly hurt one flyer a turn emplaced guns, can DA's hurt flyers, just shoot everything they have in the air in the hope of getting 6's, ignoring whats on the ground? they have NO flyers without allies and not everyone wants to take allies and they have only the quad and lascannon to take down flyers, facing a flyer heavy army guess whats getting shot to pieces first....

 Hulksmash wrote:
I agree with Doc above and second a list with the updated rules that will be allowed at a tournament. That way the most recent rules are going to be used. Every should be able to look at a codex and realize it's the old rules. That's not something that's possible with FW items.

Seperately I'll add that I feel FW heavily favors Imperial forces. Does this mean there are a higher percentage of poop units for Imperials? Sure. But the higher number means even a small percentage of good units is going to be higher for imperial forces, especially with allies.

Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.

Just my read on it.

I really liked this post! I read the responses, but imo he explained his point really well and it's a reasonable point to make.

However, that discussion aside, I believe we established pages back that balance or perceived lack thereof is not necessarily the main reason to include/not include FW in a tournament.

Regarding the other point Hulk made above: since knowing exactly what rules are in use at an event is crucial, having an updated list of what book is currently providing the rules for a unit (for ones that have been updated multiple times / are in multiple books / etc) as Doc suggested and Hulk agreed with above, sounds imperative to me.

Saying "that's the responsibility of the player" only reinforces why folks are hesitant to have FW included. There are so many rules all over the place, having a list of exactly what units (or at the minimum, what books!!!) are allowed would be awesome, since it would make it much easier to prepare.

If there were units from say, 3 Imperial Armour books, with appropriate online updates- I feel that's somewhat reasonable. However, as an outsider to FW, I see that we're on IA9 or IA Volume 2 / ?? and get pretty darn intimidated. I don't even know the order / most recent, or which ones to pick up to prepare for a tournament allowing FW. So, (to the TOs) please consider including such a list for the events you decide to allow FW in! It would make the barrier to entry a lot easier to overcome for people who are not very familiar with FW, I think. The Adepticon requirement of asking the person to bring an extra printed out sheet of the rules to easily hand to their opponent to glance over is also a great provision, imo.

 RiTides wrote:
If there were units from say, 3 Imperial Armour books, with appropriate online updates- I feel that's somewhat reasonable. However, as an outsider to FW, I see that we're on IA9 or IA Volume 2 / ?? and get pretty darn intimidated. I don't even know the order / most recent, or which ones to pick up to prepare for a tournament allowing FW.

I brought this up in another thread, and while I personally thought it was a valid point to make, I was basically accused of lying about not being able to tell which books had the most current rules in them. According to Yodhrin it should have taken me "two minutes to ascertain the information on my own", and that I was merely pretending not to know so that I could "maintain my fiction that FW rules are hard to find". Which was complete bs by the way, because if it weren't for Peregrine I honestly wouldn't have known which books had the most "current" rules in them. Personally I still doubt that those three books have all the rules.

Crap like that is one of the reasons why I'd simply rather not bother with it at all.

 RiTides wrote:

However, that discussion aside, I believe we established pages back that balance or perceived lack thereof is not necessarily the main reason to include/not include FW in a tournament.

Regarding the other point Hulk made above: since knowing exactly what rules are in use at an event is crucial, having an updated list of what book is currently providing the rules for a unit (for ones that have been updated multiple times / are in multiple books / etc) as Doc suggested and Hulk agreed with above, sounds imperative to me.

Saying "that's the responsibility of the player" only reinforces why folks are hesitant to have FW included. There are so many rules all over the place, having a list of exactly what units (or at the minimum, what books!!!) are allowed would be awesome, since it would make it much easier to prepare.

If there were units from say, 3 Imperial Armour books, with appropriate online updates- I feel that's somewhat reasonable. However, as an outsider to FW, I see that we're on IA9 or IA Volume 2 / ?? and get pretty darn intimidated.

I own all of the books, and I need to spend a little time to figure out which is the most recent rule for any given model. But I also own three Space Marine codexes and four Tyranid codexes, and a few White Dwarves with rules in them, so that's a task without FW too. I honestly wouldn't know what to do if my opponent showed up with one of those shadowweaver eldar tank things, and that's a "gw model".

I don't even know the order

Well, they start at Volume 1, and go up through Volume 11, pretty much numerically.

So, (to the TOs) please consider including such a list for the events you decide to allow FW in! It would make the barrier to entry a lot easier to overcome for people who are not very familiar with FW, I think. The Adepticon requirement of asking the person to bring an extra printed out sheet of the rules to easily hand to their opponent to glance over is also a great provision, imo.

This is actually a good point/idea. Though asking for print-outs is questionable legally. (Not a lawyer).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sidstyler wrote:

I brought this up in another thread, and while I personally thought it was a valid point to make, I was basically accused of lying about not being able to tell which books had the most current rules in them. According to Yodhrin it should have taken me "two minutes to ascertain the information on my own", and that I was merely pretending not to know so that I could "maintain my fiction that FW rules are hard to find". Which was complete bs by the way, because if it weren't for Peregrine I honestly wouldn't have known which books had the most "current" rules in them. Personally I still doubt that those three books have all the rules.

To be fair, two minutes is a little too short. 10-15, however, and you'd be good to go, provided you actually put in the effort. It's not that Peregrine got you info that's not available, it's that you didn't even bother trying to get it on your own.

 Redbeard wrote:

I own all of the books, and I need to spend a little time to figure out which is the most recent rule for any given model. But I also own three Space Marine codexes and four Tyranid codexes, and a few White Dwarves with rules in them, so that's a task without FW too. I honestly wouldn't know what to do if my opponent showed up with one of those shadowweaver eldar tank things, and that's a "gw model".

You're going to honestly say it would take you longer than 10 seconds to remember which is the most recent Tyranid codex versus which of 11 Forgeworld books has the most recent rules for whichever unit?

I can't believe you'd make that comparison.

Perhaps a non FW tournament or two could be won by the cylon deathfleet before we open the floodgates and let FW in whole hog? This is a lot like all the GK whining for the last two years, but meanwhile SW and IG were still dominating all the events. Let the game be played as it is and let some actual hard data come in before taking a correcting pencil to it.

Redbeard- I thought IA Vol 2 was the most recent? Like they changed the numbering? Honest question...

I was just throwing the number 3 out there, but Sidstyler mentioned 3 after, so now I'm curious. Are there 3 IA books that would contain all "non-Apocalypse only" units? That'd be great, and could entice me to pick them up. I know I'm not the only one in this boat- I tend to be one of the better-informed of my gaming group. But there's just not much FW use here, so it's hard to know what's really needed. Any clarifications/tips would be great!

 Redbeard wrote:

I don't even know the order

Well, they start at Volume 1, and go up through Volume 11, pretty much numerically.

I know you're being silly, but I have to call Shenanigans here. Yes, the IA books are numbered 1-11, but

1. Not all of them have a table of contents on the FW site, so how do you know what's in each book?
2. They absolutely don't have the same units in the books.
3. There is also IA Apocalypse 2, IA Apocalypse Second Edition, and IA Aeronautica that were published in between the IA 1-11 books that made some units in IA 1-11 obsolete.
4. Did you miss the discussion a few pages back where I had to correct the guy using the pdf from 2008 to add a Lucious Pattern Drop pod to a Blood Angels army despite IA Apocalypse Second Edition forbidding BA, adding points, adding a FO slow, and adding a dangerous terrain test before assaulting, none of which the guy was using?

The simple fact that someone has to research for 10 minutes which IA book has the most recent rules for Unit X shows that there is a knowledge gap. I'll repeat what I said earlier, if a TO is going to allow FW units, he had better own or have friends bring ALL of the F'ing IA books with him or you'll have someone bring an old IA book (either unknowingly or maliciously), and using outdated rules.

I don't think Redbeard is saying that at all.

The reality is you are never going to have 1 book that has everything you need in the hobby. It's a matter of degrees.

The current space marine codex is out of date. It and all other 5th edition and older books require the updated 6th edition FAQs in order to function. In fact, unless you have the Space Marine Codex on the IPAD, you also need a copy of the White Dwarf with the Storm Talon rules to have all the Space Marine Codex rules on hand.

Does that mean we shouldn't allow the Storm Talon? The Space Marine Codex on the Ipad is a different version than the combined Space Marine Codex + FAQ. Which are the current rules?

The point is ... there is some overhead in being in this hobby and playing this game. That is not strictly a Forgeworld issue.

AdeptiCon produces this document every year to layout what book has the most current version of the rules and what AdeptiCon events allow Forgeworld models.

http://www.adepticon.org/12rules/201240KIAApoc.pdf

As we get closer to AdeptiCon we will update it for 2013 as well.

muwhe wrote:

The current space marine codex is out of date. It and all other 5th edition and older books require the updated 6th edition FAQs in order to function. In fact, unless you have the Space Marine Codex on the IPAD, you also need a copy of the White Dwarf with the Storm Talon rules to have all the Space Marine Codex rules on hand.

Sorry, but that is not a valid comparison at all. The 5th edition Space Marine Codex makes everything in the 4th edition Space Marine codex obsolete. Any TO worth his salt will know the 5th edition codex from the 4th, and catch any errors.

However, subsequent IA books DO NOT make other IA books obsolete. What subsequent IA books do is make Unit X from IA book A obsolete, and Unit Y from IA Book B obsolete. If you aren't familiar with ALL of the FW books or at least have access to them, you're going to F-up.

That Adepticon link is Aces by the way. GREAT idea and good work, there! That will be very useful for a TO running FW units and will help prevent players from using the wrong rules.

 kronk wrote:

I know you're being silly, but I have to call Shenanigans here.

What does that mean, calling shenanigans? Is that from a movie?

The simple fact that someone has to research for 10 minutes which IA book has the most recent rules for Unit X shows that there is a knowledge gap.

And yet, it's still easier to get this information than to get the rules for the Eldar Shadowtank, or even the entire Sisters army. The points you raise are valid concerns, but they're nothing new. I've attended tournaments (in the past) where my opponent was running Kroot Mercenaries. I've played against Lost and the Damned. These were never printed codexes, and their rules weren't widely available. Did they break the game? No. Did I still have a good time at the tournament? Yes. Did I know everything those lists could do before encountering them? No. Did it matter? No. My opponent had the rules with them, and I was able to ask them questions and check their rules during the game.

This is not a complicated game. It's not a balanced game. All these arguments stem from fear of the unknown, nothing more. But, really, what's to fear? My opponent might use a model that I haven't seen before, and, in a game where things have AVs and Wounds, I might not be able to figure out how to kill it? My opponent might spring a hidden synergy on me? My opponent might find an "unfair" advantage?? (As if using the Space Wolf codex at all isn't an unfair advantage). You might have to think on your feet a little. Is that so scary? Are you admitting that you can't think on your feet? That you can't come up with a strategy to handle a model you hadn't seen before? God forbid you get put on a table with terrain you didn't expect, you'd probably lose the whole tournament. It might change the Meta?? Seriously? Every new White Dwarf might change the Meta... The level of paranoia here is just disgusting. They're toy soldiers. They look cool. They're not going to ruin your universe.

I'm ignoring all of your "Is that so scary questions" as you are crossing into personal attacks and straw man arguments.

We don't know each other from Adam, but I (and my group) are very Pro-FW.

The points I am making is that a TO needs to take it upon himself to know what rules are current to avoid someone cheating or using the wrong version unintentionally.

Further, players need to make the choice to either be familiar with what the current rules are for each unit or just not play in a FW tournament. It doesn't do you any good to read the guy's IA book if it's the outdated IA book for the unit in question, as an example.

 kronk wrote:
I'm ignoring all of your "Is that so scary questions" as you are crossing into personal attacks and straw man arguments.

They might not be your arguments, but they'r enot straw men - these are the exact reasons that others have posted, in this thread, for not wanting to allow FW at tournaments.

The points I am making is that a TO needs to take it upon himself to know what rules are current to avoid someone cheating or using the wrong version unintentionally.

Agreed. Although, I don't really know if it would be all that bad if someone used an older version, if that's the version of the rules they brought with them. As long as both players can look at the same page in a book and agree that it's what they're using, if it's the most recent version or not isn't going to matter.

Further, players need to make the choice to either be familiar with what the current rules are for each unit or just not play in a FW tournament. It doesn't do you any good to read the guy's IA book if it's the outdated IA book for the unit in question, as an example.

I don't think people need to know all the current rules to play in a tournament. That's the mindset that's scaring people away from FW. Again, this isn't that complex of a game. You don't need to know everything about every unit you might potentially encounter in order to play and have fun (and even win). There's nothing out there that's going to be so surprising that simply talking to your opponent at the beginning of the game won't address. Six questions: "What is that? What is it's statline? How does it move? What does it shoot and what's it's range? What does it do in assault? Does it have any special rules?" As long as they have whatever version of the rules they're using, you can play a game with them.

muwhe wrote:
AdeptiCon produces this document every year to layout what book has the most current version of the rules and what AdeptiCon events allow Forgeworld models.
http://www.adepticon.org/12rules/201240KIAApoc.pdf

kronk wrote:
That Adepticon link is Aces by the way. GREAT idea and good work, there! That will be very useful for a TO running FW units and will help prevent players from using the wrong rules.

That does look like a good, comprehensive product and a nightmare to maintain. What happens when it's wrong? For example, I went looking for the one FW unit I care about, the Wraithseer. I have Imperial Armor Apocalypse, Second Edition. I bought it because of the Wraithseer. The Adepticon document shows IA11 as the proper reference for the Wraithseer. I think IAA:2E is newer than IA11. Shouldn't the list show that instead of IA11? Are the rules the same in both books? (I don't own IA11 to check) How many other units have this kind of discrepancy?

I think you have IA11 and Apoc 2nd edition backwards, Arshbombe, but my books are at home.

 Redbeard wrote:

Further, players need to make the choice to either be familiar with what the current rules are for each unit or just not play in a FW tournament. It doesn't do you any good to read the guy's IA book if it's the outdated IA book for the unit in question, as an example.

I don't think people need to know all the current rules to play in a tournament. That's the mindset that's scaring people away from FW. Again, this isn't that complex of a game. You don't need to know everything about every unit you might potentially encounter in order to play and have fun (and even win). There's nothing out there that's going to be so surprising that simply talking to your opponent at the beginning of the game won't address. Six questions: "What is that? What is it's statline? How does it move? What does it shoot and what's it's range? What does it do in assault? Does it have any special rules?" As long as they have whatever version of the rules they're using, you can play a game with them.

I agree that you don't need to know all of the units to play the game. I agree that it's not that complex. I agree that all of your questions are good ones to ask and will let you know how to play against that unit.

However, you are not addressing my point so I'll say it again. For the 3rd time: If the TO isn't familiar with the current rules, how is he going to prevent someone from bringing the old rules. This is not 4th edition codex Space Marine codex versus 5th Edition codex sort of thing. This is a Unit A from book B is superseded by Unit A in Book C sort of thing. Again, look at the back and forth 5 or 6 pages ago concerning the Lucious Pattern Drop Pod. The guy thought he was in the right, despite it no longer being BA allowed, or having it's points increased, or taking up a FO slot, or forcing dangerous terrain.

If the TO doesn't have the books or some other resource, this will happen and players will feel cheated. All I am saying, AGAIN, is that the TO had better be up on what's the most recent rules/version of each units, and players should either do the same, or not care if their opponent is using the wrong version (always an option), or just not bother (also, always an option).

As I've said this multiple times and am not getting honest replies to it, I'm out of this conversation. Enjoy.

kronk wrote:
However, you are not addressing my point so I'll say it again. For the 3rd time: If the TO isn't familiar with the current rules, how is he going to prevent someone from bringing the old rules.

I did address that point. I agreed with you:

Redbeard wrote:

 kronk wrote:
The points I am making is that a TO needs to take it upon himself to know what rules are current to avoid someone cheating or using the wrong version unintentionally.

Agreed.

I also went on to say that I really don't think the game is harmed that much by someone using an older version as long as both players agree that it's what's in the book, but yes, absolutely, TOs should know the rules.

You think it's OK to use an old version, RB? That seems off.

Shenanigans is a good expression surprised you don't know it!

Muwhe's Adepticon link is ace!

Attacking kronk is a bad idea RB- he's super pro-FW, and making a valid point.

Nobody replied to say what books I need! Do I honestly need them all dating back to IA1, or will the 3 most recent (what are they?) suffice?

I believe the recent ones will be fine, IIRC they are updates of all the old stuff. And IA1 and IA2 are out of print due to being outdated anyway.

Technically all but IA1 & IA 2 aren't available anymore. I think they are going to be reprinted updated for 6th but right now they don't exist outside of ebay legitimately.

In reality, it would depend on what you'd want to know the rules for. The three most recent won't cover some of the ork or eldar stuff. Though I don't currently have an IA Aeronatica (sp?) yet so maybe that has some of the missing units. Naturally characters and such are in their relevent books like Badab 9-10 for a ton of space marine ones.

 Redbeard wrote:

Kingsley wrote:
Don't play this sort of game, it only makes you look silly. Everyone knows Games Workshop produced models exist on a different level than Forge World produced models.

No, not everyone knows this. Some of us know that Forgeworld models are GW models. That's the portion of us who are literate.

Stop playing dumb, it got old a long time ago.

Redbeard wrote:

Thus, allowing these units unbalances the Flyer metagame element provided by 6th edition

You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.

And I believe you on this... why? You seem to tout stupid Internethammer memes like Space Wolves being "unfair," so I'm not sure that I trust your opinions on balance.

Peregrine wrote: At most you could argue that the Sabre guns are too good (though mostly because GW changed the artillery rules, the old Sabre platforms were pretty bad), but all of the other AA units are marginal at best if you don't need to plan against flyerspam.

Since Imperial Guard can ally with practically everyone, it only takes one broken unit to throw off the balance for everyone else. If Sabre Platforms and a few other units were banned, I'd be fine with Forge World, but blanket allowing it does more harm than good IMO.

RiTides wrote:You think it's OK to use an old version, RB? That seems off.

Actually, yes, I do. Because it's a game, and oddly enough, the old versions are no better or worse than the new versions.

I ran a tournament last year, I called it the "Retro tournament" - people could use old codexes instead of the most recent, if they wanted. A few did. No one died. Everyone had a good time.

There's a new chaos codex out, right? (or maybe it's tomorrow). Does that mean that all of a sudden, the old chaos codex is unbalanced? That it's going to break the game? How have we survived the four years that it's been out?

With only a few minor exceptions, Codex Creep means that newer stuff is better, cheaper, or some combination of both. Why would anyone have an issue with someone running 9 point orks without furious charge when they could be running six point orks with furious charge? Unless perhaps they were running deathwing and afraid of the old choppa rule...

New codexes (or forgeworld books) aren't so out of place as people seem to want to believe. I have a friend who has an arbites army, built under the old witchhunters codex. The new Sisters codex doesn't really work for that. What's better, what's more legitimate, continuing to use the older codex to run that army, or using a fandex? I'd rather he just keep using the old WH codex, personally.

So, yeah, as long as both players know the rules for what's on the table, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with using an older version, whether than be an older version of FW books, or an older version of a codex. The game hasn't changed so substantially that these older versions are no longer compatible, so what's the big deal?

 Redbeard wrote:

With only a few minor exceptions, Codex Creep means that newer stuff is better, cheaper, or some combination of both. Why would anyone have an issue with someone running 9 point orks without furious charge when they could be running six point orks with furious charge? Unless perhaps they were running deathwing and afraid of the old choppa rule...

I would pay 9 points for an ork if I had the old choppa rule.

 Redbeard wrote:

Actually, yes, I do. Because it's a game, and oddly enough, the old versions are no better or worse than the new versions.

95% of the time, this is correct RB. However, there are some units that got hit with the nerf bat as they were pretty darn powerful on their first release. One of them is arguably one of the most likely you'll see in a tournament: Lucious Pattern Drop Pod.

 RiTides wrote:

Nobody replied to say what books I need! Do I honestly need them all dating back to IA1, or will the 3 most recent (what are they?) suffice?

I don't think you need them all. Most FW units will come from Aeronautica, Apocalypse Second Edition, and Apocalypse 2, which contain many non-apocalypse and non-filers, despite their respective names. You'll also want the Horus Heresy book, I'd imagine. I can't wait to get my greedy little hands on that one! There should be a lot of units that will gain popularity from it. I can't say until I get mine, though.

If someone wants to bring something beyond that, they'll need to bring their book. That Adepticon pdf that someone posted above looks pretty good, now that I've had a chance to flip through it more. As long as your up-to-date with which is the most recent book and you require people to bring their books, you should do fine. I'm sharing this pdf with my gaming group, for sure.


Edit: Whoops. This doesn't have Aeronautica, obviously. The Caestus Assault Ram was updated in Aeronautica and I don't see the Contemptor Dreadnoughts at all.

Nobody replied to say what books I need

Rtides – You just need the ones that have the rules for the models you plan to play. : )

At Chicago Games Day Forgeworld announced they would in addition to the, Horus Hersey book be producing IA:12 (Necrons, Minotaurs and DKoK). They also mentioned they would be revisiting and updating IA1. So the expectation is there will be a single updated book this year to bring the current Imperial stuff together for 6th edition.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Edit: Whoops. This doesn't have Aeronautica, obviously. The Caestus Assault Ram was updated in Aeronautica and I don't see the Contemptor Dreadnoughts at all.

Kronk,

That document exists as it did for AdeptiCon 2012. So it has yet to account for any new book releases. : )

muwhe wrote:

You have once again made the mistake of believing that the metagame is balanced, with or without Forgeworld. Any argument against the inclusion of Forgeworld that uses the word balance is automatically invalid.

+1 this.

+1 your this and his


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Muwhe - Awesome! I have been wanting a reason to finish up my DKoK.

muwhe- I meant more to read up on the units that are available... given the below, is it true that I can't buy the books direct from FW for all the units that could be fielded? (i.e. I have to go through ebay?)

I think that's reasonable for a few units... but to have to go through ebay for 8 or 9? books of units... that seems a bit excessive!

 Hulksmash wrote:
Technically all but IA1 & IA 2 aren't available anymore. I think they are going to be reprinted updated for 6th but right now they don't exist outside of ebay legitimately.

In reality, it would depend on what you'd want to know the rules for. The three most recent won't cover some of the ork or eldar stuff. Though I don't currently have an IA Aeronatica (sp?) yet so maybe that has some of the missing units. Naturally characters and such are in their relevent books like Badab 9-10 for a ton of space marine ones.

So... what you said below would obviously be a lot preferable to what seems to be the alternative! If they could just consolidate their rules into at least current books that are still available, that'd be a huge boon towards being able to read up on the rules for at least the majority of the units.

muwhe wrote:At Chicago Games Day Forgeworld announced they would in addition to the, Horus Hersey book be producing IA:12 (Necrons, Minotaurs and DKoK). They also mentioned they would be revisiting and updating IA1. So the expectation is there will be a single updated book this year to bring the current Imperial stuff together for 6th edition.

 Redbeard wrote:
So, yeah, as long as both players know the rules for what's on the table, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with using an older version, whether than be an older version of FW books, or an older version of a codex. The game hasn't changed so substantially that these older versions are no longer compatible, so what's the big deal?

You don't see how having one person field an army and having it be entirely different from another army that uses the exact same models is a problem?

i would pay 9 points for an ork if I had the old choppa rule.

i wood do the same here my self

 Kingsley wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
So, yeah, as long as both players know the rules for what's on the table, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with using an older version, whether than be an older version of FW books, or an older version of a codex. The game hasn't changed so substantially that these older versions are no longer compatible, so what's the big deal?

You don't see how having one person field an army and having it be entirely different from another army that uses the exact same models is a problem?

What, you mean like the players who paint their marines generic colours and use them interchangably as space wolves, salamanders, blood angels, and even chaos marines and grey knights? No, I don't notice that having a noticeable detrimental effect on most gamers.

Redbeard, a better example would be using a single unit from an old SW codex, alongside all the new units.

That could create a ton of problems... see below.

 madfjohn wrote:

i would pay 9 points for an ork if I had the old choppa rule.

@RItides,

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Armour_Books

All but Imperial Armor 1, 2, 3 are available through the Forgeworld website.

Imperial Armour Aeronautica covers pretty much all current FW Flyers and AA units and Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2nd Edition covers off on another wide swath of other units. Both books run 26 sterling or roughly 40.00 USD. Between those two books you would have a pretty good start on the FW units available.

Keep in mind that Imperial Armor 1 and 2 .. are both approaching a decade old. Coming out towards the tail end of 3rd edition / start of 4th. Both have had extensive FAQ support from Forgeworld over the past ten years. So it's time to revisit this material and consolidate the rules.

muwhe wrote:
@RItides,

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Armour_Books

All but Imperial Armor 1, 2, 3 are available through the Forgeworld website.

Imperial Armour Aeronautica covers pretty much all current FW Flyers and AA units and Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2nd Edition covers off on another wide swath of other units. Both books run 26 sterling or roughly 40.00 USD. Between those two books you would have a pretty good start on the FW units available.

Keep in mind that Imperial Armor 1 and 2 .. are both approaching a decade old. Coming out towards the tail end of 3rd edition / start of 4th. Both have had extensive FAQ support from Forgeworld over the past ten years. So it's time to revisit this material and consolidate the rules.

You don't even have to order them from Forgeworld. I just bought Aeronautica at my local GW store.

muwhe wrote:
Keep in mind that Imperial Armor 1 and 2 .. are both approaching a decade old. Coming out towards the tail end of 3rd edition / start of 4th. Both have had extensive FAQ support from Forgeworld over the past ten years. So it's time to revisit this material and consolidate the rules.

Thanks for the link/summary, and if they would do the above, that would be great!

Mohoc wrote:
You don't even have to order them from Forgeworld. I just bought Aeronautica at my local GW store.

My "local" GW is at least a 2 hour drive, and doesn't stock any FW anything. If I want to order it, they facilitate the ordering, but I pay shipping. So I gain nothing by using them over just ordering from the Internet myself.

If its a GW product, why am I paying shipping when ordering through a GW store?

 Kingsley wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
So, yeah, as long as both players know the rules for what's on the table, I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with using an older version, whether than be an older version of FW books, or an older version of a codex. The game hasn't changed so substantially that these older versions are no longer compatible, so what's the big deal?

You don't see how having one person field an army and having it be entirely different from another army that uses the exact same models is a problem?

I think the issue is not the models but having a mixture of an oop Dex instead of a current Dex for your army with a hodgepodge of models, the larger point is using an oop dex. How do you handle a player who shows up to a game with a Necron Army using 3rd edition dex and the 3rd edition rules while the next guy has Necrons to but is using the current dex and 6th edition rules? I think the answer is obvious in most circumstances.

This has been a great discussion and shows why things happen often due to misguidance intentionally directed on the Internet. I understand that there are some people who want to use Forgeworld more for fun but I think there are also some people trying to enforce their will. Based on my experience Adepticon handles Forgeworld the best by far...

They have the experience
Their documentation overall to support is very good
Events like the Gladiator are quite reputable

That said and just like anything else some people will want to abuse it. Adepticon has a top staff to facilitate the application of Forgeworld but I don't think you can make that a blanket statement for the majority of events. Maybe one day GW will better integrate it into their core system but at this point in time it's nowhere close to ready.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I think there are also some people trying to enforce their will.

I think this is really missing the point. No one's trying to enforce their will, the pro Forgeworld people are simply stating that banning forgeworld is like banning Necrons. There is absolutely no difference at all.

People can obviously run events however they want. There was even an event in Australia (I think last year) that banned Grey Knights. But it's generally accepted that banning a codex is stupid and needless. It needs to be acknowledged that banning forgeworld is equally stupid and needless.

People get all up in arms when this is pointed out to them though, because no one likes to be told they're doing something stupid.

We aren't telling anyone that they all have to allow forgeworld. We're just saying that this thing they're doing is just like this other thing, and this other thing is stupid. So what they're doing is also stupid. They are, of course, free to be stupid.

Please note, I'm not directing this at any particular poster, person, organisation or event. It's just my opinion that banning a codex and banning FW are no different. And that banning a codex is stupid, therefore banning FW is also stupid.

 Kaldor wrote:
I think this is really missing the point. No one's trying to enforce their will, the pro Forgeworld people are simply stating that banning forgeworld is like banning Necrons. There is absolutely no difference at all.

Except that Forge World has a long history of being unofficial or opponent's permission only, and Games Workshop itself doesn't consider Forge World to be official or allow it in their events. Please stop with the "Forge World books are just like any other!" myth, it's really getting old fast.

Are there good reasons to allow Forge World? Yes. But "It's totally official guys, seriously!" isn't one of them.

 Kingsley wrote:
Except that Forge World has a long history of being unofficial or opponent's permission only

So what? You used to be limited to only using one codex, now you can take allies. Obsolete rules from old editions are irrelevant. FW used to require permission years ago, now it doesn't. Welcome to 2012 and 6th edition. Either play the game as the rules state, or admit that you just want to ban stuff you don't like.

and Games Workshop itself doesn't consider Forge World to be official or allow it in their events.

GW considers FW 100% official, as they have explicitly stated in their books.

GW's tournament also only allows 500 points of allies, but I don't see anyone demanding that tournaments stop allowing more than 500 points of allies. Nor did it stop people from complaining about how stupid GW's tournament missions were back when 'ard boyz existed and making better ones. The whole "GW does it this way, so should we" argument only comes out when GW is doing something you already want, so it's absurd to pretend that the tournament community cares about how GW's own events are run.

Are there good reasons to allow Forge World? Yes. But "It's totally official guys, seriously!" isn't one of them.

Why not? They ARE official according to GW's own rules, and "play the game according to the rules" is a pretty good reason.

Kingsley wrote:
Except that Forge World has a long history of being unofficial or opponent's permission only, and Games Workshop itself doesn't consider Forge World to be official

This is patently false as has been shown time and time again. The books say they are official, they appear in GW publications and at their trade events, the products are stamped as Citadel models with GW copyrights produced by GW under a sub-brand. I don't know how much clearer it can be made that these are official Warhammer 40,000 products.

or allow it in their events.

Only at their tournaments, which they run a minority of and there have already been plenty of non-official/non-balance reasons explained why this situation could be (wanting to promote certain sales lines, wanting to keep organizational issues to a minimum, etc). Additionally, Tournaments are not, and have never been in any way the arbiter of "officialdom", and whats more is that the design studio came right out and said this sort of play is not the way they intended the game to be played in the first place, they're marketing events and nothing more.

 Peregrine wrote:


GW considers FW 100% official, as they have explicitly stated in their books.

You keep ignoring about half of that paragraph every time it's brought up, but that's not what it says.

And if GW says its 100% official, why do I have to pay shipping when ordering a FW book or model through a GW store? I don't if I'm ordering a SM codex or model.

Perhaps because they aren't as tightly entwined as you've implied?

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep ignoring about half of that paragraph every time it's brought up, but that's not what it says.

That's exactly what it says.

And the other half is irrelevant. It says that you SHOULD make sure your opponent is happy to play against FW models, not that you MUST. All it's really saying is "some people hate FW, you'll avoid arguments if you just don't try to play against them", and it has nothing to do with a tournament environment where the TO will inform everyone that FW rules may be present.

And if GW says its 100% official, why do I have to pay shipping when ordering a FW book or model through a GW store? I don't if I'm ordering a SM codex or model.

Because international shipping from the single warehouse which has the model you're ordering is expensive, and GW would rather charge you for it than make less profit? And anyway, what does the shipping cost have to do with whether something is official rulse-wise or not?

rigeld2 wrote:

You keep ignoring about half of that paragraph every time it's brought up, but that's not what it says.

It does point blank say that they are "official".

And if GW says its 100% official, why do I have to pay shipping when ordering a FW book or model through a GW store? I don't if I'm ordering a SM codex or model.

Because it's a different sales channel. That has nothing to do with being official or not.

And when did they start charging shipping? Never had to pay shipping at the few things I picked up at the bunker, though it's been a couple years admittedly.

Perhaps because they aren't as tightly entwined as you've implied?

Being located in the same building, sharing the same parking lot, and having the same copyrights would imply they are.

 Kingsley wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
I think this is really missing the point. No one's trying to enforce their will, the pro Forgeworld people are simply stating that banning forgeworld is like banning Necrons. There is absolutely no difference at all.

Except that Forge World has a long history of being unofficial or opponent's permission only, and Games Workshop itself doesn't consider Forge World to be official or allow it in their events. Please stop with the "Forge World books are just like any other!" myth, it's really getting old fast.

Are there good reasons to allow Forge World? Yes. But "It's totally official guys, seriously!" isn't one of them.

Except it is. The books say they are. There is quite literally a written document from GW saying they are official!.

If that doesn't convince you, then you are a lost cause.

 Kaldor wrote:
Except it is. The books say they are. There is quite literally a written document from GW saying they are official!.

If that doesn't convince you, then you are a lost cause.

Forge World can say whatever they want in their own little bubble-- I'm reading my 6th edition rulebook right now, and funnily enough Forge World never gets a mention, even in the hobby section about expansions to the game-- which even includes Black Library novels and 40k expansion books that came out during 4th edition!

 Kingsley wrote:
Forge World can say whatever they want in their own little bubble-- I'm reading my 6th edition rulebook right now, and funnily enough Forge World never gets a mention, even in the hobby section about expansions to the game-- which even includes Black Library novels and 40k expansion books that came out during 4th edition!

So what? The "this is official" statement is found in a GW book. It doesn't matter that it isn't repeated in some other GW book, as long as the other GW book doesn't say "this ISN'T official".

(And "in their own little bubble" is just ridiculous. FW is part of GW and they would not be allowed to publish a book saying "this is official" if that wasn't GW's policy.)

 Kingsley wrote:
I'm reading my 6th edition rulebook right now, and funnily enough Forge World never gets a mention, even in the hobby section about expansions to the game-- which even includes Black Library novels and 40k expansion books that came out during 4th edition!

If an explicitly worded written statement from GW isn't enough for you, then, well...

 Peregrine wrote:
So what? The "this is official" statement is found in a GW book. It doesn't matter that it isn't repeated in some other GW book, as long as the other GW book doesn't say "this ISN'T official".

(And "in their own little bubble" is just ridiculous. FW is part of GW and they would not be allowed to publish a book saying "this is official" if that wasn't GW's policy.)

Until GW itself-- not FW, no matter how "official" they say they are or aren't-- says FW is official, it isn't. There's a reason GW doesn't mention FW stuff in their rulebook and doesn't allow it at their events, and pretending there isn't is growing very tedious.

 Kingsley wrote:
Until GW itself-- not FW, no matter how "official" they say they are or aren't-- says FW is official, it isn't. There's a reason GW doesn't mention FW stuff in their rulebook and doesn't allow it at their events, and pretending there isn't is growing very tedious.

You know what else is tedious? People like you pretending you know better than GW about what GW products GW has decided are official in GW's game. The fact that GW hasn't published the exact statement you demand doesn't change the fact that they have answered the question. At this point it's pretty obvious that you're just flailing around for any evidence you can find to keep the hated FW rules out of your game.

Also, haven't we covered the "GW's events" argument enough? We don't argue that allies should be capped at 500 points because GW's tournament does it that way, we didn't argue that we should use all the endlessly criticized 'ard boyz missions because GW's tournament does it that way, and we certainly haven't let respect for the way GW does things stop us from complaining about soft scores and every other thing GW does wrong. So why is "how GW's tournament does it" suddenly the community standard in the case of FW?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Until GW itself-- not FW, no matter how "official" they say they are or aren't-- says FW is official, it isn't. There's a reason GW doesn't mention FW stuff in their rulebook and doesn't allow it at their events, and pretending there isn't is growing very tedious.

You know what else is tedious? People like you pretending you know better than GW about what GW products GW has decided are official in GW's game. The fact that GW hasn't published the exact statement you demand doesn't change the fact that they have answered the question. At this point it's pretty obvious that you're just flailing around for any evidence you can find to keep the hated FW rules out of your game.

Except, y'know, the part where FW supplements aren't recognized in the 40k rulebook and the rest of them are. Derp.

By the way, I own several Forge World models myself-- I just think Forge World's rules aren't ready for prime time. But in any case, you've boring me now.

*plonk*

 Kingsley wrote:
Except, y'know, the part where FW supplements aren't recognized in the 40k rulebook and the rest of them are. Derp.

Could you quote and provide a page number for the statement which says that only rules specifically mentioned in the 6th edition rulebook are allowed? Because until you do, it's very simple:

One source says "these rules are legal".

One source says nothing at all about the subject.

Conclusion: these rules are legal.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Except, y'know, the part where FW supplements aren't recognized in the 40k rulebook and the rest of them are. Derp.

Could you quote and provide a page number for the statement which says that only rules specifically mentioned in the 6th edition rulebook are allowed? Because until you do, it's very simple:

One source says "these rules are legal".

One source says nothing at all about the subject.

Conclusion: these rules are legal.

"The core rulebook doesn't say it's illegal, so it's legal?" By that standard, my fan Codex (that has "These rules are official, 100% GW approved!" stamped on it) is legal, because the core rulebook doesn't say it's not.

The core rulebook also doesn't say that the old Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness book is illegal, and that book says that it's legal, so I guess you better get ready for my 10 wound, 10 attack Greater Dæmon with a 90% chance of calling for support from d3 other Greater Dæmons!

 Kingsley wrote:
"The core rulebook doesn't say it's illegal, so it's legal?" By that standard, my fan Codex (that has "These rules are official, 100% GW approved!" stamped on it) is legal, because the core rulebook doesn't say it's not.

Sure, just as soon as GW publishes your fan codex and therefore validates your claim that it's official.

The core rulebook also doesn't say that the old Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness book is illegal, and that book says that it's legal, so I guess you better get ready for my 10 wound, 10 attack Greater Dæmon with a 90% chance of calling for support from d3 other Greater Dæmons!

Really? Your best comparison is a book that's many editions out of date and completely incompatible with the current rules? I guess I should be happy that you're forced to that level of desperation, but could you stop with the stupid examples?

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep ignoring about half of that paragraph every time it's brought up, but that's not what it says.

That's exactly what it says.

And the other half is irrelevant. It says that you SHOULD make sure your opponent is happy to play against FW models, not that you MUST. All it's really saying is "some people hate FW, you'll avoid arguments if you just don't try to play against them", and it has nothing to do with a tournament environment where the TO will inform everyone that FW rules may be present.

So it's exactly what it says, but there's other stuff that you're writing off as irrelevant, but what was obviously what I was pointing out. Okay.

And if GW says its 100% official, why do I have to pay shipping when ordering a FW book or model through a GW store? I don't if I'm ordering a SM codex or model.

Because international shipping from the single warehouse which has the model you're ordering is expensive, and GW would rather charge you for it than make less profit? And anyway, what does the shipping cost have to do with whether something is official rulse-wise or not?

Your standing is that it's 100% gosh darn Gdub and there's no reason to think otherwise. If its still a separate sales channel, still stocked completely separately, still has to be shipped internationally, how 100% GW is it? I don't pay shipping when ordering a normal GW SKU, just the FW ones.

The GW I went to, when I was going to order, just went to the FW website and was filling out the order page for me. If the companies are separate enough that he can't order stock internally, why should I believe your claims that FW rules claims are GW official until GW confirms?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Except, y'know, the part where FW supplements aren't recognized in the 40k rulebook and the rest of them are. Derp.

Could you quote and provide a page number for the statement which says that only rules specifically mentioned in the 6th edition rulebook are allowed? Because until you do, it's very simple:

One source says "these rules are legal".

One source says nothing at all about the subject.

Conclusion: these rules are legal.

The 5th edition book had wording about the rule book and codexes are what you use to play the game. I haven't checked the 6th edition book.
Are the IA books codexes?

 Kingsley wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Except it is. The books say they are. There is quite literally a written document from GW saying they are official!.

If that doesn't convince you, then you are a lost cause.

Forge World can say whatever they want in their own little bubble-- I'm reading my 6th edition rulebook right now, and funnily enough Forge World never gets a mention, even in the hobby section about expansions to the game-- which even includes Black Library novels and 40k expansion books that came out during 4th edition!

Forge world have been integrated into the fold you bring the fact it does state in your rule book about them being official yet on page 294 there is a chaos army containing the chaos warhound that the rules didn't come out in a 'standard' gw expansion but a forgeworld one, just because it isn't written down in the rule book doesn't mean its not true, even int the apocalypse pages on 376-377 it is using the reaver titan, the ork mega dread and the ork fighta's so items that are not just apocalypse only.

if they are 'legal' for that game why wouldn't the ork mega dread be legal in a game when the rules state its a heavy support option?

The rule book points to the use of forgeworld in games so it doesn't create a good defense by using it.

led571 wrote:
Forge world have been integrated into the fold you bring the fact it does state in your rule book about them being official yet on page 294 there is a chaos army containing the chaos warhound that the rules didn't come out in a 'standard' gw expansion but a forgeworld one, just because it isn't written down in the rule book doesn't mean its not true, even int the apocalypse pages on 376-377 it is using the reaver titan, the ork mega dread and the ork fighta's so items that are not just apocalypse only.

if they are 'legal' for that game why wouldn't the ork mega dread be legal in a game when the rules state its a heavy support option?

The rule book points to the use of forgeworld in games so it doesn't create a good defense by using it.

Page 294 is nothing more than a two-page spread of painted models, an introduction to the Chaos painted model showcase it would seem, with no other text on it other than "The Great Enemy" at the top. How in the unholy feth you interpreted this as "FW being integrated into the fold" is beyond me, because these pages are literally "Look at the pretty models!" and nothing else. There are two titans marching behind a horde of Chaos guys because it looks cool, not because GW wants you to bring two Chaos warhounds with you to every game and tournament you play in.

Pages 376-377 are about Apocalypse, and show an Apocalypse game being played. Literally everything is legal in Apocalypse, I do believe that was the entire point of that expansion, that's why you see both regular and FW models being used. Not really sure what the point was supposed to be here but considering everything about these two pages is Apocalypse I don't really see how it's at all relevant to the discussion of what's legal in "normal" games.

If you read the disclaimer at the beginning of the books you will realize it says that: words, pictures, rules are property of GW.

This means that the rules PUBLISHED by FW are PROPERTY of GW.

A bit later it says the rules are to be considered "Official". Now this is not FW saying they are official. It is FW saying they are official on GW's behalf and with their approval.

How much more official do you want?

Given the fact that GW has little hesitation to go after people or companies who infringes on any of their IP. Do you HONESTLY think they would let someone publish official rules and let them operate for years without approving it?

Do you HONESTLY think that GW does not know what FW does and publishes?

Some people are just lost causes when it comes to reason and logic.

If you want to ban FW in your tournament, fine. But be honest about the reason:

"It's not official" is not one of them. It has been proven, in many ways.
"Balance" in an unbalanced game is not a very good one either.
"Not many people know the rules", well when a new codex comes out not many people know the rules either. The codex is not banned why would FW?

Main reason I think is fear. Plain and simple fear.

Fear of having the meta upset and a few netlist become obsolete.

My group allows FW. Not everyone uses it but everyone accepts it.

Refusing to play against FW is seen as forfeit.

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
How much more official do you want?

A GW book that says it.
"It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything.
Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official.
edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
Given the fact that GW has little hesitation to go after people or companies who infringes on any of their IP. Do you HONESTLY think they would let someone publish official rules and let them operate for years without approving it?

Do you HONESTLY think that GW does not know what FW does and publishes?

Some people are just lost causes when it comes to reason and logic.

I think it's fething hilarious that you honestly believe that this is what we believe: that FW is just a third party model/bits producer like Chapterhouse that somehow flew under GW's radar for a decade or more, despite getting pimped in every single White Dwarf, at their Games Days, etc.

Go on, beat the gak out of that straw man, show him who's boss.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
How much more official do you want?

A GW book that says it.
"It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything.
Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official.
edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.

A caveat which is somehow "irrelevant".

And on the note of "separate everything" that includes a separate design team that works independently of the main studio. GW putting their logo on FW publications and models doesn't change the fact that you have a different batch of sculptors working on them, and a different batch of designers writing the rules.

So what's the fething idea here exactly? GW and FW are the same, but they're different? If FW really had GW's full support then why keep everything separate? Why do GW always act so wishy-washy about FW and refuse to say anything one way or the other? That's what's so amusing about this whole fething argument, GW could really put a stop to it easily if they wanted to, but they don't. Even their inaction could be interpreted one of several different ways: the pro-FW crowd would obviously claim that they don't "need" to say anything as they already did in the FW books themselves, and personally I view it as GW purposely distancing themselves from FW, maybe simply out of fear that making a decision one way or the other would ultimately hurt sales, so they deliberately stay out of the debate and let the nerds fight amongst themselves, as long as they keep spending money it's a win for them.

 Kingsley wrote:


"The core rulebook doesn't say it's illegal, so it's legal?" By that standard, my fan Codex (that has "These rules are official, 100% GW approved!" stamped on it) is legal, because the core rulebook doesn't say it's not.

The core rulebook also doesn't say that the old Realms of Chaos: Slaves to Darkness book is illegal, and that book says that it's legal, so I guess you better get ready for my 10 wound, 10 attack Greater Dæmon with a 90% chance of calling for support from d3 other Greater Dæmons!

The greater demon from the slaves to darkness book was also 1250 points and suffered from instability. a champ 8 berzerkers and a greater demon would be your list and half the time you couldn't take a greater demon. since the realms of chaos list would need to be generated before each game. the two hour tourney time would get wasted as you rolled up your chaos list you could take.

 Sidstyler wrote:

And on the note of "separate everything" that includes a separate design team that works independently of the main studio. GW putting their logo on FW publications and models doesn't change the fact that you have a different batch of sculptors working on them, and a different batch of designers writing the rules.

Just to inject some truth here, the sculptors are not always different. Juan Diaz, Brian Nelson, Trish Carden, and several other GW sculptors all have FW credits. They work in the same building even.

You're being willfully ignorant if you don't believe that there is interchange of ideas and talent between the two working groups.

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
Fear of having the meta upset and a few netlist become obsolete.

If you think allowing FW will be the death of "netlists" then you're wrong. All it means is there will be new netlists that utilize the most broken/efficient FW units instead.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

And on the note of "separate everything" that includes a separate design team that works independently of the main studio. GW putting their logo on FW publications and models doesn't change the fact that you have a different batch of sculptors working on them, and a different batch of designers writing the rules.

Just to inject some truth here, the sculptors are not always different. Juan Diaz, Brian Nelson, Trish Carden, and several other GW sculptors all have FW credits. They work in the same building even.

You're being willfully ignorant if you don't believe that there is interchange of ideas and talent between the two working groups.

And yet FW themselves supposedly came out and said at the open day this year that they "have very few links with the main design studio". Supposedly they knew nothing of 6th edition or how they would integrate their stuff with the new rules at the time.

Some interchange of ideas and talent I'm willing to accept, but apparently not a lot, and especially when it comes to the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
How much more official do you want?

A GW book that says it.
"It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything.
Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official.
edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.

© Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2011, Games Workshop, the Games Workshop logo, GW, 40k, Citadel and the Citadel Device, Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, the Warhammer 40,000 logo, the Aquila logo, Forge World and the Forge World logo, Imperial Armour, and all associated marks, logos, devices, names, characters, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are ®, TM and/or © Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2011, where applicable registered in the UK and other countries around the world. All Rights Reserved.


How much more obvious does it get?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
How much more official do you want?

A GW book that says it.
"It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything.
Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official.
edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.

© Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2011, Games Workshop, the Games Workshop logo, GW, 40k, Citadel and the Citadel Device, Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, the Warhammer 40,000 logo, the Aquila logo, Forge World and the Forge World logo, Imperial Armour, and all associated marks, logos, devices, names, characters, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are ®, TM and/or © Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2011, where applicable registered in the UK and other countries around the world. All Rights Reserved.
How much more obvious does it get?

I bolded the part that you obviously missed.
Yes, they're the parent company. That doesn't mean that the child absolutely speaks for the parent.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, they're the parent company. That doesn't mean that the child absolutely speaks for the parent.

"Some people are just lost causes when it comes to reason and logic."

 Sidstyler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, they're the parent company. That doesn't mean that the child absolutely speaks for the parent.

"Some people are just lost causes when it comes to reason and logic."

Yeah, I'm completely illogical. Except not.

I've shown that they're separate companies when it comes to stocking and ordering. Some people are taking the fact that GW is the publisher for FW books and making the leap that everything FW prints is 100% GW gospel official. They aren't the same company, no matter how much I get insulted for saying so.

Kingsley wrote:
Until GW itself-- not FW, no matter how "official" they say they are or aren't-- says FW is official, it isn't.

Says you. GW says otherwise. FW books are GW publications written by GW employees with GW copyrights written at GW corporate HQ withe explicit statements saying "yes, we're official".

At this point you're just covering your ears and saying "lalalalala can't hear you".

There's a reason GW doesn't mention FW stuff in their rulebook and doesn't allow it at their events

Yes, but not necessarily because it's not "official". There have been plenty of reasons elaborated as to why.

and pretending there isn't is growing very tedious.

Only because you're telling yourself that and aren't going to change your mind no matter what you're presented with.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
How much more official do you want?

A GW book that says it.
"It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything.
Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official.
edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.

Methinks you are confused as to what exactly FW is. FW is not a distinct company, it's not even a subsidiary. It's an internal GW department just like IT, the Design Studio, or anything else. It's nothing more than Games Workshop *doing business as* Forgeworld. It's a fairly common practice. They are not completely separate companies, disabuse yourself of that notion now. They are located at the same building as the rest of GW, use GW email and phone systems, park in the same parking lot, and have their paychecks cut by the accounting office as Phil Kelly and Mat Ward and Jeremy Vetock and Robbin Cruddace do.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, they're the parent company. That doesn't mean that the child absolutely speaks for the parent.

"Some people are just lost causes when it comes to reason and logic."

Yeah, I'm completely illogical. Except not.

I've shown that they're separate companies when it comes to stocking and ordering. Some people are taking the fact that GW is the publisher for FW books and making the leap that everything FW prints is 100% GW gospel official. They aren't the same company, no matter how much I get insulted for saying so.

Well I was actually agreeing with you, lol. Sorry.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
How much more official do you want?

A GW book that says it.
"It is a GW book!" No, it's not. It's a FW book that GW publishes. They're separate companies with separate supply chains and separate everything.
Forgeworld is saying Forgeworld is official.
edit: And even then they throw in a caveat.

© Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2011, Games Workshop, the Games Workshop logo, GW, 40k, Citadel and the Citadel Device, Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, the Warhammer 40,000 logo, the Aquila logo, Forge World and the Forge World logo, Imperial Armour, and all associated marks, logos, devices, names, characters, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are ®, TM and/or © Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2011, where applicable registered in the UK and other countries around the world. All Rights Reserved.
How much more obvious does it get?

I bolded the part that you obviously missed.
Yes, they're the parent company. That doesn't mean that the child absolutely speaks for the parent.

Everything in the book is Copyright Games Workshop. Games Workshop is publishing a book that says the 40k units in it are official.

A bit further up on that page we can read the following: First published in Great Britain in 2011 by Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. If the book in question is © Games Workshop, is published by Games Workshop and even has the Games Workshop logo on it, I'd assume that it's a Games Workshop product, no? If the parent company didn't stand for everything in the book, why would they print it in the first place?

I'm still on the fence about the inclusion of Forge World but I'm just going to bring this point up again as I don't feel that it has been fully answered yet. Please don't take me for arguing against the inclusion of Forge World, I'd just like to see a valid answer for this.

If Forge World is so official, then why does GW not allow it in their own tournaments?

 Rampage wrote:
I'm still on the fence about the inclusion of Forge World but I'm just going to bring this point up again as I don't feel that it has been fully answered yet. Please don't take me for arguing against the inclusion of Forge World, I'd just like to see a valid answer for this.

If Forge World is so official, then why does GW not allow it at their own tournaments?

It's been up like 5 times the last 5 pages; they don't allow more than 500 points in allies either. They don't follow their own rules.

 Sidstyler wrote:

And yet FW themselves supposedly came out and said at the open day this year that they "have very few links with the main design studio". Supposedly they knew nothing of 6th edition or how they would integrate their stuff with the new rules at the time.

And yet they had a full colour book ready to go within two months of the release of 6th ed, full of 6th ed rules for their flyers. This sounds like the sort of thing that would require foreknowledge of both the rules, and how they'd integrate. Almost as if they had worked with the people at the same company, in the same building.

Denial of the obvious is not a very successful tactic. There are some legitimate concerns about including Forgeworld in tournaments. The officiality of FW models is not one of them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Rampage wrote:
I'm still on the fence about the inclusion of Forge World but I'm just going to bring this point up again as I don't feel that it has been fully answered yet. Please don't take me for arguing against the inclusion of Forge World, I'd just like to see a valid answer for this.

If Forge World is so official, then why does GW not allow it at their own tournaments?

It's been up like 5 times the last 5 pages; they don't allow more than 500 points in allies either. They don't follow their own rules.

I know, I put it there a couple of times. I don't think I've seen that point mentioned before though, and I would say that's a valid point. If that point has been mentioned before then I must have missed it, I'll drop that question now.

 Redbeard wrote:

And yet they had a full colour book ready to go within two months of the release of 6th ed, full of 6th ed rules for their flyers. This sounds like the sort of thing that would require foreknowledge of both the rules, and how they'd integrate. Almost as if they had worked with the people at the same company, in the same building.

FW also had their FAQ's out within 2 weeks of 6th edition. Again, something you can't do if you don't have access to them for some time.

Saying GW and FW don't know what the other is doing is a weak argument for not allowing FW in tournaments. There are better angles to take...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Everything in the book is Copyright Games Workshop. Games Workshop is publishing a book that says the 40k units in it are official.

A bit further up on that page we can read the following: First published in Great Britain in 2011 by Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. If the book in question is © Games Workshop, is published by Games Workshop and even has the Games Workshop logo on it, I'd assume that it's a Games Workshop product, no? If the parent company didn't stand for everything in the book, why would they print it in the first place?

No, I wouldn't assume that. Can you go to games-workshop.com and buy it?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1160002 That's the only Apocalypse book on GW's site.

It's copyright GW, etc. because GW owns all the copyrights that FW uses - FW just licenses the rights. Is the Dawn of War series of video games a GW product?
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War -- Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2008. (http://www.dawnofwargame.com/uk/home/agegate)

 Redbeard wrote:
There are some legitimate concerns about including Forgeworld in tournaments. The officiality of FW models is not one of them.

I'd like to know what counts as a legitimate concern then, since everything I've seen brought up so far has just been immediately written off.

1. yes a list of units and where the rules are would need to be crafted. it is more work for a TO.

2.what forgeworld units are broken?

I prefer if FW units are allowed since i have several units i would like to bring but it should be TO's choice since it is more work for him.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Everything in the book is Copyright Games Workshop. Games Workshop is publishing a book that says the 40k units in it are official.

A bit further up on that page we can read the following: First published in Great Britain in 2011 by Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. If the book in question is © Games Workshop, is published by Games Workshop and even has the Games Workshop logo on it, I'd assume that it's a Games Workshop product, no? If the parent company didn't stand for everything in the book, why would they print it in the first place?

No, I wouldn't assume that. Can you go to games-workshop.com and buy it?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1160002 That's the only Apocalypse book on GW's site.

It's copyright GW, etc. because GW owns all the copyrights that FW uses - FW just licenses the rights. Is the Dawn of War series of video games a GW product?
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War -- Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2008. (http://www.dawnofwargame.com/uk/home/agegate)

You're still under this weird assumption for whatever reason that FW is it's own company...it's not.

It's Games Workshop DBA Forgeworld. Nothing is being licensed, it's all GW, the people who work at Forgeworld are GW employees working in a GW department simply doing business under a different name for market differentiation.

 Vaktathi wrote:
You're still under this weird assumption for whatever reason that FW is it's own company...it's not.

I don't believe that anyone honestly believes that. It's being obtuse in the base case, or intentionally trolling in the worst case.

I don't have time for such boorish behavior. You should ignore anyone that says such things.

 Vaktathi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Everything in the book is Copyright Games Workshop. Games Workshop is publishing a book that says the 40k units in it are official.

A bit further up on that page we can read the following: First published in Great Britain in 2011 by Forge World, Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. If the book in question is © Games Workshop, is published by Games Workshop and even has the Games Workshop logo on it, I'd assume that it's a Games Workshop product, no? If the parent company didn't stand for everything in the book, why would they print it in the first place?

No, I wouldn't assume that. Can you go to games-workshop.com and buy it?
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1160002 That's the only Apocalypse book on GW's site.

It's copyright GW, etc. because GW owns all the copyrights that FW uses - FW just licenses the rights. Is the Dawn of War series of video games a GW product?
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War -- Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2008. (http://www.dawnofwargame.com/uk/home/agegate)

You're still under this weird assumption for whatever reason that FW is it's own company...it's not.

It's Games Workshop DBA Forgeworld. Nothing is being licensed, it's all GW, the people who work at Forgeworld are GW employees working in a GW department simply doing business under a different name for market differentiation.

With a different supply chain and lots of other differences...

edit: Also, I was being told that the GW copyright is what makes it a GW book. I've shown that the GW copyright is on the DoW games and therefore is not alone evidence that it is a GW book.
And everywhere I've seen has Forgeworld being a separate company - where do you see that they're DBA? (I could be completely blind)
And no kronk, I'm not being obtuse nor trolling. Go ahead and keep insulting me though - it's cool.